College students in Pittsburgh crammed into a Pittsburgh City Council hearing yesterday to voice… College students in Pittsburgh crammed into a Pittsburgh City Council hearing yesterday to voice opposition to the mayor’s proposed 1 percent tuition tax.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl proposed the tax in early November. The tax has prompted debate between the mayor’s office and government authorities, universities and some members of city council. At the council’s finance committee, the proposed tax and its proponents met even more resistance from college students.

Students from Pitt, Carnegie Mellon University, Chatham University, Point Park University and others presented petitions totaling 10,150 names and took turns calling the tax “taxation without representation,” “stupid” and “a hostage situation.”

Representatives from Pitt’s current Student Government Board, as well as next year’s board, attended the meeting to denounce the proposed tax.

SGB President-elect Charlie Shull warned the council that if they passed the tax, he would aim to unify Pitt’s 17,000 undergraduates against council members in the next election and investigate all aspects of the council’s treatment of students. He also undercut some claims that students deserve to be taxed because they disrespect the city.

Along with Shull, SGB members-elect Zachary Bombatch, Laura Paiewonsky and Molly Stieber also attended, as well as some members of the Pitt Program Council and current SGB members.

Current SGB President Kevin Morrison urged the council to explore other options for raising funds to fill the $15 million gap in the city’s pension fund before voting on the tuition tax.

He also quelled tax supporters’ suggestions that students should be as proactive in battling rising tuition costs as they are the tax.

“Don’t try to turn us against our universities. We are with our universities. We’re not with the city,” he said.

Board member Nila Devanath said rising tuition could be explained and traced back to fluctuating state funding and other factors, while there was no reason to tax students exclusively to fill a city-wide budget gap.

Students who said they were already fighting to pay for school also attended the meeting.

CMU student David Bradshaw said he would have to take out another loan to pay for the tax, which would be about $400 a year for CMU students. He said ultimately, the taxes would cost him more than $2,000, including interest.

Bradshaw, Bombatch and others in attendance emphasized the threat the tax could pose to Pittsburgh’s thriving academic society.

Bombatch said the tax could force students to transfer, while others said it would promote “brain-drain” in Pittsburgh and prevent future students from considering studying in Pittsburgh at all.

Before the meeting, Councilman Bill Peduto, who represents parts of Oakland in District 8 and serves as finance and law committee chair, addressed the waiting students.

“Students are probably one of the lowest income groups,” Peduto, a Pitt graduate student, said. “They are being asked to pay because they are bettering themselves.”

As far as legislation goes, he added, the tuition tax is “asinine.”

The council is currently split 5-4 in favor of the tax.

“One vote has to change. That’s it,” Peduto told students.

At the meeting, however, CMU student body President Rotimi Abimbola said students aim to raise general awareness. If you win over council members’ constituencies, she said, council members will be forced to follow public will.

Daniel Jimenez, president of Pitt’s Graduate and Professional Student Association, said that the tax is especially threatening to students who have families and homes. The tax effectively overtaxes these students, who are already pay real-estate, amusement, sales and others taxes, he said.

Ravenstahl originally said that the tuition tax was designed to avoid taxing Pittsburgh homeowners, whom he said were already overburdened by taxes.

The levy would rightfully tax college students who make use of city public services while being sheltered from other city taxes by educational institutions, the mayor said.

Mackenzie Farone, a graduate student at Point Park, said that the mobilization of students in itself calls the legitimacy of the tax into question.

“In three weeks, we have jumped into action,” Farone said, citing a Facebook group she started to support the cause that rose in membership from 400 to about 25,000 throughout November.

City council was not so unified. Councilman Jim Motznik, who represents neighborhoods such as Beechview and Carrick in District 4, said that the tax was unfortunate, but necessary.

Motznik called current contributions made to the city by universities and nonprofit organizations an “insult” and a “slap in the face.”

He also argued that with or without the tax, students who own homes will pay more regardless, whether through the tuition tax or the rise in real estate taxes that might occur if the tuition tax is not passed.

Councilwoman Darlene Harris, who represents Brighton Heights and Spring Garden in District 1, added that many complain about the tax, but few have proposed workable solutions.

Council President Doug Shields, however, agreed with Peduto. He said students should not have to pay for “the utter failure of the leadership of the city.”