Pittsburgh, Allegheny County appeal Amazon HQ2 bid release |

Pittsburgh, Allegheny County appeal Amazon HQ2 bid release

Aaron Aupperlee
In this April 27, 2017 file photo, construction continues on three large, glass-covered domes as part of an expansion of the campus in downtown Seattle. Amazon said Thursday, Sept. 7, that it will spend more than $5 billion to build another headquarters in North America to house as many as 50,000 employees.

Pittsburgh and Allegheny County have appealed an order from Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records to make public the bid it submitted to Amazon for its second headquarters.

The move will keep the bid and any related emails secret as the matter moves to Allegheny County Court.

The city and county argued the state Office of Open Records erred in its decision to order the bid and emails be made public. Attorneys asked the county court to vacate the office’s ruling and dismiss the matter.

PGHQ2, a private company formed to develop the bid, announced the appeals in a statement Friday. The appeal was filed Friday afternoon.

“To be clear, if the Pittsburgh region is selected by Amazon, and a deal is reached on what incentives will be offered, anything that involves government funds will go through a robust, public process as the legislative bodies do their due diligence,” PGHQ2 said in the statement. “There will be every opportunity for the public to weigh in on those proposals and to have their voice heard.”

Neither Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald nor Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto would comment further.

PGHQ2 said it would release the bid if the other 19 finalists release their bids, noting that only two cities have them public. Philadelphia released its bid but redacted about a third of it, including all information related to incentives, subsidies and real estate.

Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are among the 20 finalists for Amazon HQ2.

The second headquarters could bring 50,000 jobs and $5 billion in investment.

Pittsburgh and Allegheny County had until Friday to release the bid or appeal the decision. WTAE reporter Paul Van Osdol and several other journalists, including the Tribune-Review, filed open records requests under the state’s Right-to-Know Law seeking copies of the bid submitted to Amazon and emails, letters and other communications between public officials and with the company.

Those requests were initially denied, prompting appeals to the state’s Office of Open Records. The office ruled Jan. 24 in response to WTAE’s request that the city must release the bid and related emails and the county must release the bid within 30 days or appeal the order to Allegheny County Court.

The city, in its appeal, claimed the state Office of Open Records was wrong and abused its discretion in its order to release both the bid and emails. The county was only ordered to release the bid after it proved that no emails or other correspondence existed.

“The OOR Appeals Officer made numerous important factual errors that rendered the conclusions in the Final Determination legally erroneous,” the county wrote in its appeal.

Both the city and county argued in their initial denials that the bids were exempt from Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law because they contained trade secrets and confidential information. The state Office of Open Records disagreed, ordering the documents be released.

The appeals from the city and county both contend that statements made by Erik Arneson, executive director of the state office, show that the office was biased in its decisions.

Arneson and the office could not be reached Friday.

The Office of Open Records ordered the city and county to comply with other open record requests, including one from the Tribune-Review, related to Amazon after it ruled on the WTAE matter. Those orders will likely be appealed as well.

Aaron Aupperlee is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at [email protected], 412-336-8448 or via Twitter @tinynotebook.

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.