Howard: In upcoming mayoral election, Independent candidates far more appealing than Ravenstahl

Eschewing the typical ideological identity and principled policy positions that identify a… Eschewing the typical ideological identity and principled policy positions that identify a politician as either a Democrat or a Republican, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is running for re-election as both a Republican and Democrat.

Ravenstahl, a life-long Democrat, finagled this by defeating a challenger in the Democratic primary and winning the write-in contest for the Republican nomination with 607 votes from Pittsburgh Republicans.

With the two-party system successfully broken to Ravenstahl’s will, two Independent challengers, Franco “Dok” Harris and Kevin Acklin, emerged to contest the election.

Acklin, a business lawyer who grew up in South Oakland and holds degrees from both Harvard and Georgetown, said he launched his campaign “to wrest control of this city from the Machine.” Acklin said that this election is about bringing stronger leadership to the mayor’s office and eliminating the corruption that has flourished during the Ravenstahl administration.

Acklin’s got a point. Ravenstahl’s tenure in office has been dogged by unexplained no-bid contracts, the awarding of city contracts to campaign contributors when they’re the highest bidder, and Ravenstahl’s personal misuse of city resources such as the SUV purchased with Homeland Security dollars that he took to a Toby Keith concert.

It’s hard to disagree with Acklin when he says, “[The Ravenstahl] administration is being run for the benefit of a few.” And just in case you think you’re one of the chosen few who benefit from the Ravenstahl administration, remember that Pitt students are Ravenstahl’s new cash cow.

Ravenstahl recently proposed levying a $100 fee against college students in order to help resolve the city’s pension crisis. Both Independent candidates came out strongly against this fee with Harris characterizing it as a cynical attempt to extract money from a constituency without the political clout to contest it.

Harris said that it made no sense to saddle students with an extra fee when students are prevented by their studies from holding down full-time jobs. The city should instead look to wealthier non-profits like UPMC and others that own large amounts of land throughout the city but pay no taxes, Harris said.

Like Acklin, Harris said that he’s running to bring leadership to the mayor’s office and described himself as a social progressive, economic liberal and fiscal conservative. Harris will appear on the ballot as a candidate of the “Franco Dok Harris Party,” and he said that Ravenstahl’s decision to run as both a Democrat and Republican reflects poorly on his personal character and demonstrates that he’ll do anything to win.

But the same can’t be said of Harris, whose campaign has imposed caps on contributions of $2,400 per individual and $4,800 per household. Harris said that these caps are necessary because it’s impossible to show voters that you’ll bring change to the city if you don’t change the way campaigns are run in the first place.

Neither Ravenstahl nor Acklin have joined Harris in this self-imposed campaign finance reform, and Acklin said that it simply isn’t feasible. Acklin said, “We’re running to win,” and Harris’s contribution caps would make it impossible to defeat Ravenstahl’s well-funded campaign.

Although Acklin and Harris disagree on this question of campaign contributions, both candidates said that the best way to keep young people in the city is to promote small businesses and help start-ups establish themselves in local neighborhoods in order to create jobs for college graduates.

Harris said that the role of the mayor should be to forge public-private partnerships investing in start-ups and encouraging entrepreneurship. If elected, Harris said he would work to rebuild business districts and help connect entrepreneurs with free legal and business help from local schools.

Acklin is equally focused on creating jobs for young people and he stressed the importance of competition and entrepreneurship in rebuilding the city’s economy. As a business lawyer, Acklin said he worked closely with start-ups and green job providers who he thinks are key to the city’s future and its ability to keep young people in the area after graduation.

Acklin said that, if elected, he’d make the mayor’s office a “one stop shop” for entrepreneurs where they could be connected with local resources that would help them build a business and create jobs.

One thing is clear: There is no room for young people in Ravenstahl’s version of Pittsburgh, where business deals are tied to campaign contributions and students are treated as an easy source of revenue in times of crisis.

Instead, we must look to the Independent candidates because their vision of Pittsburgh’s future includes students not as a $100-per-year revenue source to be exploited but as partners in creating a more vibrant city.

Continue the conversation at Giles’s blog, publiusawakened.blogspot.com, or e-mail Giles at gbh4@pitt.edu.