ShareThis Page
Joseph Sabino Mistick

The public's stake in the Penguins deal

| Saturday, June 13, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

When the Pittsburgh Penguins announced that the hockey team is for sale, the public quickly was assured that there is no danger the franchise will relocate. “Move along. Nothing to see here,” seemed to be the official line.

But sometimes a hockey team is more than just a hockey team. In this case, the Penguins also own the development rights to 28 acres of publicly owned land at the old Civic Arena site, an asset that will increase the Penguins' sales price by millions.

“That's where the value is for a potential investor,” John Clark, a sports management professor at Robert Morris University, told the Trib.

Those development rights, given to the Penguins in 2007 as part of what Clark called “a sweetheart deal,” always have been controversial. It started with the glaringly inappropriate decision to trust the most valuable site in the city to an organization that never ever has developed anything.

Along the way, the Penguins have found it hard to stay on their skates on the unfamiliar ice of urban development. They clashed with the community, eventually reaching an agreement, then immediately renouncing it. That invited a lawsuit by the Hill District CDC, which resulted in another, albeit better, agreement for the community.

And the Penguins' greatest victory, the decision by U.S. Steel to build its headquarters on the site, was actually the work of elected leaders from the city, county, state and federal governments. But even that success was sullied when renderings of the proposed building showed a design worthy of a suburban office park instead of this premier location.

It is pointless to grouse about the past. But the taxpayers must be protected from the Penguins. As the marketing begins, the team might try to sweeten an already sweet deal for even greater profit. Or it might seek relief from the development timetable that requires them to build by a certain date or begin to lose their rights. These are really bad ideas.

But the good news is that the development rights finally could be placed in the hands of a real developer. And this time around, if the owners want to renegotiate any aspect of the deal, our elected leaders must protect the public first — because this time, the whole town is watching.

But what about all that public investment, handed over to the Penguins, now being sold for the owners' private profit? Is it fair for the Penguins to keep all that profit?

It is hard to argue against the equitable notion that the taxpayers have a claim to some share of that additional profit. The development rights were freely given to the Penguins, though the land was bought with tax money paid over generations by hardworking average Pittsburghers.

It might be time for our leaders to claim our stake. In this town that has stayed true to solid values and never lost its way, fair dealing still counts for something.

Joseph Sabino Mistick, a lawyer, law professor and political analyst, lives in Squirrel Hill (

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.

click me