EDITORIAL – Pitt remains vague about Pete’s repairs

Pitt is rebuilding a portion of exterior concourse that has deteriorated at the Petersen… Pitt is rebuilding a portion of exterior concourse that has deteriorated at the Petersen Events Center, citing the original construction as “faulty,” according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The building permit application filed yesterday estimates that the cost of repair will be around $200,000.

This is not the first time the $119 million Pete has needed pricey repairs. In fact, this is the second major expensive mistake Pitt has made since the Pete was built five years ago. Just last year Pitt had to restore a leaky roof, the result of construction problems, which cost the University $6 million.

The Pete has been the source of financial strife since its conception, when it was only expected to cost $35 million. Taxpayers’ share of the cost was only estimated to be $13 million, but soon that amount jumped five times to a whopping $66 million.

During the Pete’s construction, Pitt’s irresponsibility in overseeing the project resulted in scores of extra expenditures until cost overruns for the arena ultimately reached 34 percent, according to the Post-Gazette – a rate that industry professionals say is well over the average.

This is also not the first time Pitt has chosen to be completely vague about it’s spending when it comes to the arena. Throughout its construction, taxpayers were left in the dark about how much money was being spent on the arena and exactly what their money was being used for.

Most recently Pitt has neglected to tell The Pitt News and other media outlets what caused the recent deterioration. The University has failed to specify exactly what construction problems resulted in the leaky roof last year. Furthermore, Pitt did not release the name of the construction company responsible for such poor work. Indeed, the only reactions we’ve gotten from Pitt officials have been cursory responses that barely touched on the truth.

In other words, Pitt freely uses and misuses public money, but it gets antsy about giving the public information about where and why that money is being spent. Public money is clearly being wasted, but Pitt doesn’t want to name names.

For a long time the building of a new arena had been Pitt’s dream, but Pitt allowed the dream to stand in the way of reality. This wistful thinking started with the Pete, but it seems to be spreading throughout campus. For instance, Pitt’s fundraising campaign has allowed the University to construct and renovate numerous buildings throughout campus.

But Pitt’s concern about constructing new buildings and making the old ones look shiny and sleek, makes it clear that our university places huge emphasis on its image, maybe more so than on the quality of the buildings – we see this most obviously in the Pete.

Maybe Pitt is hoping to attract more students with a prettier, state-of-the-art campus. Perhaps university officials see new buildings like the Pete as sound investments for the future, a way they can get more for their money. Flashy buildings can’t buy students, nor do they make Pitt any more reverential in our eyes.

What do gain our respect, however, are honesty and clarity – things that Pitt is seriously lacking at the moment. The University owes it to the students to be more transparent about its spending. Equally as important, it owes it to The Pitt News. As a major source of news for Pitt students, we deserve to know how Pitt is using public money. Unfortunately, however, Pitt has chosen to remain ambiguous and continues to be irresponsible in its handling of this issue.