The city of Pittsburgh is facing a $160 million shortfall on its proposed $384.6 million… The city of Pittsburgh is facing a $160 million shortfall on its proposed $384.6 million budget next year.

PGH 21, Mayor Tom Murphy’s appointed advisory board, has made several recommendations on how to address the deficit. Many of these, including a 1/2-percent payroll tax increase and merging the paramedic and fire departments, are reasonable belt-tightening measures. One proposal, however, is a shot in the foot to our city.

The board is proposing a 10-percent tax on all retail sales of alcoholic drinks at eating, drinking and sporting establishments within the city. Murphy says the measure is targeted at tourists and city visitors, and is expected to raise $29 million.

This measure is going to primarily affect three neighborhoods: the Strip District, the South Side and Oakland. These spots are primarily seen as entertainment – and therefore drinking – destinations. The tax would also put a damper on any efforts to enliven the Downtown scene.

Why, if we are trying to present the city as a tourist and entertainment destination, would we unfairly target those who would make it so? This is not to imply that all entertainment involves getting wasted at bars, but to many, a cocktail or two is an integral part of an upscale dining experience.

The burden will also be placed firmly on the under-30 crowd – those who go out and spend money at nightspots the most. Aren’t these the folks we’re trying so desperately to attract and retain?

Since the tax would not affect alcohol purchased and brought into the home, we are likely to see an increase in keg parties and all-night at-home drinking sessions. How will this benefit the city? It certainly won’t boost the local economy.

As any smoker can tell you, the idea of vice taxes is nothing new. However, smoking and drinking are legal in this country for those of age. There are plenty of other legal items for sale that can kill you. What’s next, a triple-cheeseburger surcharge? If the city is so morally outraged at the idea of drinking, even in moderation, make it illegal; don’t tax it out of existence.

There are plenty of sane ways to address the budget deficit. In Pittsburgh, residential parking passes are available for $20 a year with a guest pass running a cool buck. It would certainly not be prohibitive to charge $25 a year for a pass and $5 for a guest. In fact, if such an increase did discourage drivers, it would likely push them into using the Port Authority system. Wouldn’t that be a boon to the city?

It’s a bad idea to make tourists, young people and sports enthusiasts shoulder such an uneven responsibility for the city’s money problems when they are the ones who are being courted to bring the city back to life in the first place.