Pittsburgh’s Amazon HQ2 proposal should be made public, state rules |

Pittsburgh’s Amazon HQ2 proposal should be made public, state rules

Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Mayor Bill Peduto speaks during a press conference following Pittsburgh's application to Amazon as a destination for their HQ2, at the City County Building.

Pittsburgh’s push to keep its bid for Amazon’s second headquarters a secret took a serious blow Wednesday.

Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records ordered Pittsburgh and Allegheny County officials to publicly release the bid and emails related to it within 30 days.

Local officials argued that the proposal should not be made public because it contains proprietary information and trade secrets.

The Office of Open Records disagreed in a written decision issued Wednesday to WTAE-TV reporter Paul Van Osdol, who filed an appeal with the state agency to obtain a copy of the proposal. The Tribune-Review filed a similar appeal.

“Although the city and Allegheny County maintain that the proposal has economic value, and disclosure of the proposal would allow other jurisdictions to appropriate that economic value, the proposal is not covered by the trade secrets exemption,” wrote Kyle Applegate, appeals officer with the Office of Open Records.

“The proposal is not related to any business or commerce being conducted by the city or county; instead, through the proposal, the city and county are hoping to attract Amazon to the region so that it may engage in commerce, and the region can reap the benefits of jobs and investment,” Applegate added. “Neither the city nor county has pointed to any support for the proposition that a government agency may have a trade secret when not engaging in business in commerce.”

Separately, the Office of Open Records ruled that Amazon-related emails between Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, his former Chief of Staff Kevin Acklin and anyone with the email domains,, or should also be made public.

The city and count could appeal the office’s decision in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. PGHQ2, the team working on the Amazon bid, released a statement Wednesday saying the city and county law departments are reviewing the Office of Open Records decision to decide what to do next.

“When next steps have been determined, we will announce that. Until that time, we will not have any further public statement on this matter,” the statement said.

Officials previously said they would fight to keep the proposal secret.

Pittsburgh is one of 20 cities vying for the second headquarters. The project is expected to bring up to 50,000 jobs and $5 billion in investment to the city Amazon chooses.

Bids and details from several other cities have been made public, either voluntarily or though open records laws. Philadelphia, another finalist, released its bid but redacted about a third of it. New Jersey officials have said the state proposed $7 billion in tax breaks to Amazon if the company picks Newark, also a finalist.

Detroit’s bid gave Amazon 30 years free of many taxes and promised $120 million to help train the tech talent Amazon is looking for. Detroit did not make the final cut.

Greg LeRoy, head of Good Jobs First, a Washington-based group that tracks public subsidies to corporations, said city and county officials should make the bid public. LeRoy applauded the Office of Open Records decision and congratulated the journalists fighting for access.

“A huge amount of money is being put on the table out of public sight,” LeRoy said. “The decisions being made here, the offers being made, will affect everyone in your region for many, many years.”

LeRoy said that Amazon likely didn’t pick Pittsburgh because of its tax breaks or incentives but rather for the potential talent the city offers. That means more to Amazon’s bottom line than tax breaks, he said.

“They don’t have much to gain,” LeRoy said of Amazon and tax breaks. “Taxpayers in Pittsburgh have a lot to lose.”

This story has been updated to reflect that Allegheny County claims no emails related to the Amazon bid exist.

Aaron Aupperlee and Tom Fontaine are Tribune-Review staff writers.

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.