ShareThis Page
Votes show Dems’ clash |

Votes show Dems’ clash

The two men battling for Pittsburgh’s top job have little in common beyond their allegiance to the Democratic Party.

Councilman Bill Peduto, 42, of Point Breeze, is a bachelor with a dozen years of experience in city government. He’s challenging Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, 26, who has been married since 2004, spent most of his life in the North Side and has worked three years for the city.

An analysis of their votes when the two served together on City Council reveals stark political and philosophical differences.

Although most City Council votes are unanimous, Ravenstahl and Peduto clashed on several key issues from 2004 to 2006, including how to best manage the city’s financial recovery and how to rein in wasteful spending by their colleagues.

“There are some very stark differences between the candidates,” said David Y. Miller, a University of Pittsburgh public policy professor who served as former Mayor Tom Murphy’s budget director. “It’s going to be an interesting primary in the sense that they’re both seen as the new Pittsburgh and the young generation taking over.”

Peduto announced last week he would run against Ravenstahl in a campaign that could cost each candidate about $1 million. Whoever wins the May 15 primary likely will win the general election in November, because Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 5 to 1 in Pittsburgh.

The biggest contrast might be the candidates’ opposing views on Pittsburgh’s state-guided financial recovery — Ravenstahl voted against it and Peduto voted for it in June 2004.

The plan, which passed 5-4 despite fiery labor union protests, called for $33 million in cuts to the city’s $380 million 2004 budget and increases to the city’s payroll and occupational privilege taxes.

“I think Peduto’s vote was the better choice,” said Jake Haulk, president of the Allegheny Institute, a Castle Shannon think tank. “He sensed that this was the best thing for the city.”

Since state oversight began, the city has seen its bond rating upgraded from “junk” status, turned a budget deficit into a $57 million surplus this year, and pared 700 employees from the public payroll.

There are other differences.

Peduto voted against giving an $18 million tax-increment financing package, or TIF, in 2006 to PNC Financial Services Group for a $170 million tower Downtown. Ravenstahl supported it.

“That vote tells us a lot about how they want to see the city grow,” Haulk said. “In the Ravenstahl camp you think these TIFs are doing some good when the evidence says they haven’t done any good.”

On another vote, Ravenstahl opposed a buffer zone around abortion clinics to keep protesters away from clients while Peduto voted for it.

“I think on the critical issues regarding the city’s financial stability and on providing a progressive agenda, we have disagreed,” Peduto said. “My voting record is one of fiscal responsibility, government reform and social tolerance.”

Ravenstahl said: “I’ve made some tough votes, but I’ve been consistent in favor of growing jobs and our economy, making our streets safer and cleaner, and making sure we are on solid financial ground.”

Perhaps the biggest fight between Ravenstahl and Peduto came amid the investigation into Councilwoman Twanda Carlisle’s questionable spending practices.

The inquiry began after records showed she paid a family friend $28,500 to prepare a health study that relied largely on previously published reports.

Ravenstahl’s June 2006 legislation put limits on how much taxpayer money council members could spend without council approval; Peduto’s would have eliminated council’s so-called “walking around money.” Ravenstahl’s version prevailed.

Louis “Hop” Kendrick, a mayoral candidate in 2005 and a former Allegheny County councilman, said the candidates’ voting records count with voters in this race because neither has the overwhelming popularity that gave Mayor Bob O’Connor an easy victory in 2005.

“Whichever candidate says things that are the most consistent with how they voted will carry the day,” Kendrick said. “O’Connor was an aberration. He was everyone’s guy. People are going to look more closely at (Peduto and Ravenstahl).”

Ravenstahl spokesman Dick Skrinjar said “the single most important vote” of the candidates’ shared time on City Council was Jan. 3, 2006, when Ravenstahl was unanimously elected council president — a job that positioned him to become mayor if O’Connor could not serve out his term. O’Connor was diagnosed with brain cancer six months later and died Sept. 1.

“Remember, they both voted for the same guy, and that’s why we’re here today,” Skrinjar said.

Additional Information:

The candidates

Luke Ravenstahl

Age: 26

Residence: Summer Hill

Family: Wife, Erin Lynn Feith

Education: Degree in business administration from Washington & Jefferson College

Background: Served on City Council from January 2004 to September 2006, when he was elevated from council president to mayor upon the death of Mayor Bob O’Connor

Bill Peduto

Age: 42

Residence: Point Breeze

Family: Single

Education: Recently completed courses for a political science degree from Penn State University

Background: Served on City Council since 2003; served seven years as chief of staff to former Councilman Dan Cohen

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.