Cutting trash services affects students, city

Pittsburgh is about to get dirty. It’s about to have its streets unswept, its trash bins… Pittsburgh is about to get dirty. It’s about to have its streets unswept, its trash bins unemptied and its rodents un-controlled.

Years ago, when the steel industry controlled it, Pittsburgh was called the Smoky City, a reference to the air that blackened most buildings.

The city’s recent budget cuts – which clipped police patrol and public transportation – have now turned to address trash collection, pest control and graffiti removal. Perhaps Pittsburgh wants to assume the moniker of Dirty City.

According to yesterday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “the city will stop collecting garbage for the housing authority, parochial schools … [and] reduce bulk collection and street sweeping.” This laundry list of cut services to come was announced by the Public Works Director to the City Council.

Because of budget constraints, it seems the city cannot afford to make its streets hygienic and livable.

Pitt students, particularly those living in South Oakland, know that garbage piles mean rodents, roaches and other blights, including the lovely stench of refuse in the morning. Trash removal is not a matter of public service; it’s one of public safety.

These budget cuts will affect those living in apartments larger than six units – including public housing buildings, where more than 45,000 families live. In Oakland, apartment buildings will have to arrange for private contractors to remove trash, which will probably lead to higher utility fees.

Pittsburgh is already having problems attracting and retaining its residents. Cutting basic services like trash removal, buses and police enforcement will not remedy this problem. Who wants to live in a dirty, dangerous city where you can’t go anywhere after 9 pm?

Of course, with service cuts come layoffs. The Post-Gazette reported that the Public Works Director has 24 percent of his original workforce. It also stated that the city laid off 731 workers, to compensate for budgeting problems.

Who wants to live in a dirty, dangerous, jobless city? Certainly not freshly minted college graduates who already experienced the effects of these changes.

Pittsburgh spent 50 years trying to change its image. Its stone buildings are no longer black, its rivers are cleaner and its population is less prone to changing their shirts at lunch – a common practice before cleaner air standards were enacted.

Despite these criticisms, there is little that can be done. Things, as the saying goes, are bad all over. But, unless city services are reinstated, Pittsburgh is headed toward bad times and the bad nicknames that accompany them.