University Drilling Bill goes to Governor

A bill in Harrisburg awaiting Governor Corbett’s signature would permit Pennsylvania’s state-owned university system to keep the full proceeds if universities decide to lease campus land for drilling.  Although the 14 universities were permitted to lease land for drilling in the past, any revenue would have been collected by the state treasury.

However, under the new law, royalties from mineral extraction—including Marcellus Shale drilling—would be divided between the individual university and the other state-owned institutions.  Should any of the universities decide to lease for drilling, the leasing university would take in 50 percent of the revenue, while 35 percent would be distributed among the other thirteen universities.  The remaining 15 percent would be allocated for tuition assistance for the schools.  With the new law, six of the fourteen that sit within the Marcellus Shale region—Manfield, Lock Haven, Indiana, California, Clarion, and Slippery Rock Universities—could earn significant profits from any drilling leases.

The spokesman for the State System of Higher Education remarked that the universities had not previously leased any land because the universities would not receive any of the revenue.  However, with the bill’s easy passage through the House of Representatives on Tuesday (136-62), several universities are ready to explore leasing options.

The bill also allows for the lease of other state-owned land, such as those in the large state prison grounds.  An unspecified portion of the revenues would be retained by the sponsoring state agency.

Any lands leased for drilling would join the roughly 700,000 acres of state forest currently leased. 

City Seeks Sustainable Funding Formula

Taxes confuse everybody, so it seems a little dizzying to try and examine the conversation between the City of Pittsburgh and local non-profits. As it currently stands, most land owned by non-profits, including everything from local AmeriCorps programs, to UPMC, do not pay any property tax (roughly 50% of Allegheny County land is exempt from property taxes). These non-profits are also exempt from some local payroll preparation taxes.

However, local non-profits have sought to give back financially to the City; non-profits may offer a lump sum to the City and a large amount of money is given to the City voluntarily through the Pittsburgh Public Service Fund, a collection of various non-profits in Pittsburgh. The largest contributor to this fund is UPMC.

Generally, the City Council and the Pittsburgh Public Service Fund meet every 2 or 3 years to discuss how much the Fund might be able to provide to the City; although no amount is ever promised, local non-profits are expected to contribute roughly $3.2 million a year for the next five years. Additionally, the University of Pittsburgh payed over $5 million dollars in various fees and taxes last year; of course, this does not include all of the local revenue generated by students who come to study at the University.

The uncertainty of the amount that the City will receive from non-profits every year has prompted some local leaders to call for a task force that would find ways to generate more revenue from non-profits and to make it

more consistent, and "institutionalize" the method of generating revenue. This would be the purpose of the task force, as well as potentially lobbying for the elimination of the payroll preparation tax exemption.

This can be a touchy subject for students; on the one hand, many of us enjoy the services provided to us by the City, which has, like many cities across the US, found itself facing budget problems. On the other hand, with dwindling support from the State, it is difficult to imagine that Pitt paying more money to the City would have no effect on student tuition and fees. Moving forward, students should pay close attention to the discussions between the City and the Pittsburgh Public Service Fund.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/pittsburgh-urged-to-examine-nonprofit-donations-654802/

Countdown to the Pittsburgh Mayoral Elections

With less than 50 days until election day, our campus has been abuzz, especially with Presidential campaign fever. It is an extremely critical election, the likes of which probably have not been seen in the lifetimes of most of the students here at the University of Pittsburgh. However, elections and politics are not a once-every-four-years event!

In fact, after November, one of the most important campaigns for the city will really start heating up. I am talking about the primary elections for mayor. While the general election that will determine the mayor is not until November 2013, the primaries to determine the candidates for each party will happen in May. To be honest, in this city, the Democratic primary is ultimately the election that determines who will become mayor. The reality of urban politics is that much more often than not, the Democratic candidate wins the majority of the votes. Therefore, the primary determining the Democratic candidate often determines the overall winner as well. Pittsburgh has not elected a Republican in the general election since the Great Depression. That being said, it is critical that students pay attention to the Democratic primary.

Historically, student turnout for mayoral elections has been low, which has given the mayor little incentive to care about issues that are important to students. In fact, just four years ago, days after the general election was over, there was an attempt by the current administration to put a tax on school tuition. Fortunately students reacted by mobilizing to voice opposition and the tax was never enacted. This year, I am encouraging all students to be proactive, so that we do not have to be reactive, and the mayor will have an incentive to pay attention to issues that are important to students. Check back next week for more information on the potential candidates.

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Upheld—For Now

On Tuesday, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ordered the Commonwealth Court to review how identification has been made available to all eligible voters.  In theory, the law, which requires all voters to present identification when they cast their votes, should allow all voters to obtain free ID.  However, the Supreme Court expressed concerns over whether or not state officials have adequately educated the public and removed obstacles involved with acquiring identification.  If, following review, the court finds that not all legitimate votes would be counted, the commonwealth’s voter ID law must be terminated.

While the court did not officially rule on the constitutionality of the ID law, two of the six justices voted in dissent, writing that the law should not remain in effect.  The order also asserted that there is “little disagreement” that the law would most adversely affect voters who are part of the “most vulnerable segment of our society,” such as the elderly and disabled.

The order handed down to the Commonwealth Court presented a deadline of October 2.  By then, the court must be able to prove that all eligible Pennsylvania voters have easy access to identification for the law to stand. 

Pittsburgh Joins Municipalities Fighting Marcellus Shale Mandate

               Everyone in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, or Pennsylvania as a whole have at least heard about Marcellus Shale. A huge reserve of natural gas found beneath several states, including Pennsylvania, has opened a large debate about environmental protections, drilling opportunities, and the relationship between drilling companies and communities. In the City of Pittsburgh, it has been a particularly complicated subject; many people support the extraction of natural gas as an energy source, but oppose a method of extraction known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Pittsburgh elected officials have argued that this method is dangerous for the environment, a threat to drinking water, and has no place in the city limits of Pittsburgh, with its large, dense population. Proponents of Marcellus Shale drilling insist that these claims of environmental danger are unsubstantiated.

               This article: <http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/marcellusshale/city-backs-local-control-of-shale-drilling-regulations-653376/#ixzz26jbvoNAV> by the Post-Gazette, details some of the legal battle going on between the state of Pennsylvania and local townships. Governor Tom Corbett, whose gubernatorial campaign was heavily funded by companies hoping to drill in Marcellus Shale, had helped to pass, and now defends, state Act 13. This legal measure nullifies local zoning ordinances passed by municipalities that prevents companies from drilling within their boundaries. In other words, municipalities that have banned the companies from fracking within their cities would now be forced by the state to allow it. A legal suit was filed by seven municipalities, later joined by the State Association of Township Supervisors, an advocacy group representing thousands of townships across the Commonwealth, seeking to nullify this act. A decision handed down recently sided with the townships.

               This support of the court towards local decision on this issue has prompted Pittsburgh's City Council to file a brief in support of this decision; the City Council believes that they should be able to use zoning in order to restrict drilling. Because an appeal was also filed, the State Supreme Court will hear the issue on October 17th in Pittsburgh.

               This issue has a large impact on students at Pitt; environmentalists argue that drilling in the city limits could be damaging for local drinking water, while advocates of companies hoping to drill in the city cite the potential for job creation by expanding the use of drilling (and given Pitt's excellent engineering school, this has a large impact on anyone interested in this field).

               Regardless of your thoughts on the issue, the controversy surrounding Marcellus Shale and the best way to make use of its massive natural gas reserves isn't going away anytime soon. It is important to stay educated on the subject to understand the implications for students at this great university.

Foreign Policy: Where Do You Stand?

            If you haven’t seen the new film, Innocence of Muslims, spare yourself the 14 minutes of uncreative dialogue, horribly fake accents, and green-screen skills that would surely give Steven Spielberg a stroke and turn the news on instead. Fair warning: brace yourself, as you’re about to take a shocking, disheartening look at the anti-American wildfire that has spread worldwide in response to it. 

The past two weeks have been marked by tire burnings, enraged protesters, attacks on American embassies, and yes, even the loss of American lives. From Afghanistan to Indonesia, plumes of tear gas and smoke from flag burnings are rising higher than ever before and the unrest is borderline unmanageable. Why? This same film not only propagandizes Muslim life, but, more insensitively, mocks the life of the revered prophet of Islam, Mohammed.

One could dare argue that the violent response is disproportional to the film. However, whether or not this outrageous travesty justifies such a response from the Muslim world is superfluous. Why? Simply put, it IS happening. We may have been given an unfortunate hand, but it is the duty of our leaders to play the cards intelligently and responsibly.

Let’s take an abrupt U-turn and head back towards the United States. Let’s face it; this election has primarily pivoted around our failing economy and the eye-burning unemployment rate. However, the unrest abroad has highlighted a vital, and often underrated, forum in presidential elections: foreign policy. Talks about terrorism, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the role of our military have momentarily pushed our economic issues to the back burner of the rhetorical stove.

Fortunately, CNN has created a general outline of foreign policies according to each candidate (link below). In light of everything that is happening overseas, I think it is absolutely imperative for everyone to take a look into the foreign policies of both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, develop an educated, rational opinion, and take it with you into the voting booth on November 6^th.

Link: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/where-obama-romney-stand-on-foreign-policy-challenges/?hpt=po_t1

Why Should I Vote?

One of the biggest problems in representative government is voter
disinterest.  People feel they don’t have time, they can’t make a
difference with their vote, or they simply don’t care about politics. 
It’s understandable- we all have busy lives, and sometimes the weight of
the political system seems too much for us to move.  None of the typical
lines we cycle through time and time again will convince anyone to vote,
so I’ll try a new one: it benefits you.
Jeff Fazio, advisor to the HACC Student Government Association and a
fellow participant in Pitt Day (they simply call it Lobby Day) once told
me that the most powerful actions anyone can take to ensure their
political influence is to register to vote and then  go ahead and do so. 
It works like this: when writing to your representative, your letter is
first read by an assistant at their office.  They immediately check the
voter registration system to see two things: if you’re registered to vote,
and if you voted in the last election (but not who you voted for; that’s
protected under federal law).  This makes your request far more important
to them: not only are you in a position to vote for or against them, but
you have done so before.  Moreover, you’ve cared enough to write them a
letter, which potentially means you care enough to make other people write
more letters- and vote for or against them accordingly.  You’ve suddenly
gone from a nobody to a blip on their radar, and they will handle your
request accordingly.  This can certainly be the first step in getting your
politician to change a law in a way that benefits you and many others.
So, don’t think of voting as an unnecessary hassle; consider it a premium
you pay for “law insurance”.  At the end of the day, the politicians work
for you, and this is your way to remind them of it.

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Goes to Supreme Court

On Thursday, the commonwealth’s Supreme Court will begin hearings regarding Pennsylvania’s Voter ID law, which, unless ruled unconstitutional by the court, will go into effect for the November elections. 

The law, requiring voters to present a valid state ID on Election Day, has been hotly debated in Pennsylvania and in its comparable forms across the country, as similar suits are being filed in multiple states.  Republican proponents of the law argue that voter identification is necessary to reduce voter fraudulence. Democrats counter that such a requirement is a detrimental to eligible voter turnout, as many prospective voters in Pennsylvania do not have a state identification or driver’s license.  Democrats, along with the ACLU, claim that the law discriminates against the poor and minority groups.

Last month, a Commonwealth Court judge ruled that requiring voters to present identification does not violate the state’s constitution.  As the case goes to Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, neither Democrats nor Republicans hold a majority following the suspension of Justice Joan Orie Melvin.  Should the ruling be tied at 3-3, the lower court’s judgment will be upheld.  As Pennsylvania is expected to again be a swing state in November’s presidential election, the Supreme Court’s ruling could play a major part in deciding the election.

For the complete article:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/voter-id-case-goes-to-pa-supreme-court-on-thursday-652639/