City-County Merger? It's No Lark

Category: Good Government On The March, Politics || By

Last week, someone who parks in the same lot that I use started driving to work in a 1962 Studebaker Lark.

Hey, if you have to drive in Oakland traffic, there are worse ways than in a Studebaker Lark.

It's a cute little car. With a six-cylinder engine and standard shift, it probably gets reasonable mileage, too. Pity it's an orphan.

Four years after this early compact rolled off the factory in South Bend, Ind., the Studebaker Corp. exited the car business.

. . .

Also last week, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and Pittsburgh Mayor Opie "Luke" Ravenstahl announced their support for a merger between the two governing bodies.

When they did, I couldn't help but think of a semi-famous joke involving Studebaker. It was a very sick company when it was acquired by another faltering automaker, Packard Motor Car Corp.

One Wall Street analyst supposedly cracked, "It's like a man swimming in shark-infested waters, being rescued by a man in a leaky raft."

. . .

What was wrong at Studebaker? Well, Studebaker management refused to take a strike, instead giving their unions everything they wanted.

Executives made bad product-planning decisions, saddling their dealers with slow-selling cars the public didn't want.

And management was famously short-sighted. Instead of investing in a modern factory, they used their profits to pay themselves fat dividends and acquire non-automotive companies.

Like Studebaker, Detroit-based Packard had an expensive work force and a rundown plant. It also had a lot of dowdy, unpopular cars. But Packard had money in the bank.

When the Eisenhower administration hinted that it would be willing to send defense work to Studebaker, Packard purchased the Indiana company.

. . .

The joke about Packard and Studebaker was prophetic. The weaker company dragged the stronger company to a watery grave.

The defense contracts never arrived. The unions refused to accept concessions. Banks cut off Studebaker-Packard's credit. The country entered a recession.

In 1958, the company stopped making Packards and closed the Detroit plant. Five years later, the plant in South Bend closed, too. In 1966, the last Studebaker cars left a Canadian assembly line.

. . .

Like Packard, Allegheny County is in marginally sound financial shape. But like Packard, it owns a lot of old infrastructure, it's laden with debt, and it's saddled with terrible union contracts, especially at Port Authority transit.

And like Studebaker, the City of Pittsburgh is far worse off.

As a homeowner in Allegheny County, I don't want to see the City of Pittsburgh fall to pieces.

But as a taxpayer in Allegheny County, I also don't want my money used to rescue Pittsburgh when our own life raft is shipping water.

. . .

Yes, the Studebaker analogy is apt in a lot of ways. Pittsburgh's seven decades of one-party rule have discouraged it from taking risks.

Instead of accepting painful short-term cuts for long-term benefits, the city's so-called leaders have treated its payroll like a full employment program for Democratic voters.

They've paid themselves fat salaries and larded the budget with perks for themselves and their cronies.

They've spent millions of dollars to introduce slow-selling products --- like the Lazarus and Lord & Taylor stores downtown --- that the public didn't buy, while their infrastructure has suffered from lack of investment.*

. . .

Merger proponents promise that the city would be placed in a separate "asset district," and that county tax revenue wouldn't be used to bail out Pittsburgh.

I have a hard time seeing how that would be legal. On its face, it violates the equal protection clauses of the state and U.S. constitutions.

I also remember how we voted not to use public tax money to fund stadium construction ... and they went ahead and did it anyway. So make me no promises, Pittsburgh Democrats.

. . .

Before the county helps the city onto its leaky life raft, I'd like to see the city make good faith efforts to get its house in order.

First, Pittsburgh doesn't need nine people on city council. Westmoreland County, with twice the population, has three commissioners. Cut six councilmen and their staffs. That should save several million dollars annually.

Second, take immediate steps to end duplication of services:

• Fold the city's redevelopment authority into the county's.


• Merge the city and county parks and recreation departments; most people consider Schenley and Frick parks to be regional assets anyway.


• Merge the public works departments.


• Combine the city police with the county police --- and the transit police and the housing authority police, too.

. . .

Prove to us, Pittsburgh, that you're willing to cut patronage jobs and give up some of your fiefdoms.

Prove to us that this isn't just a power grab by the same Pittsburgh politicians who have driven their city into receivership over the past 70 years.

Otherwise, I'll be damned if I'll vote for any merger with the City of Pittsburgh.

. . .

Maybe I'm cynical, but I wonder if Onorato and Ravenstahl want this plan to fail. After all, phasing in joint operations of departments like public works could be accomplished without going to the voters. And smaller cooperative efforts would prove that a bigger merger could work.

But the voters reject an "all or nothing" plan, Pittsburgh's old ward heelers can sit back and say, "See? We told you the public doesn't want a merger."

And the political power structure will remain in place, hoping that someone else bails out the city.

. . .

Generally, I'm all for municipal cooperation. Merge Port Vue, Liberty and Lincoln, for crying out loud. Combine East McKeesport, Wall and Wilmerding into North Versailles. There should be wedding bells ringing for White Oak, South Versailles and Versailles, too.

They're small communities that share borders and school districts. They're relatively free of debt and have few serious long-term problems.

I'm not in favor of rescuing Pittsburgh's back-slapping old boys' club from its own foolishness. They made the mess. Let them start fixing it, and then we'll talk.

Otherwise, this sure looks to me like we're being offered a used Studebaker, and we're being told it's a cherry Ferrari.

Sorry, Dan and Luke. The Mon Valley has enough old clunkers of its own. We don't need yours.

* --- entry amended to correct factual error, after comment from Derrick

Your Comments are Welcome!

And they’ve spent millions on other products (like the stadiums) of dubious long-term value, while their infrastructure has suffered from lack of investment.

I was, uh, unaware the city only and not the county owned the stadiums. And if you think I’m nuts, visit pgh-sea.com.

As to equal protection, I don’t have the information handy but you mind want to see above differing tax rates in the areas merged into metropolitan Indianapolis; ISTR the Post-Gazette covering it in one of their metropolitanism series.
Derrick - April 07, 2008

Interesting how you worked the Studebaker into this post.
Scott Beveridge (URL) - April 07, 2008

You’re right, Derrick —- mea culpa.

But I remain skeptical of the idea that they’ll maintain separate tax rates. What incentive would anyone have to move into the city’s borders?
Webmaster - April 08, 2008

I still to this day can’t figure out why Heinz Field was built when money was still owed for Three Rivers. I can understand that the Pirates needed a new ballbark. Too bad the promise of better players from the increased revenue of a modern stadium never happended.

Is Mellon Arena payed off yet? I think some investors should buy it and have stuff there you don’t see normally. I was thinking an American Gladiatiors competition or Medevial Games like jousting. Any other ideas to have there?
The Dude from West Mifflin - April 08, 2008

With regard to my earlier comment about Indianapolis, apparently the magic words are Unigov. January 20 the P-G included this graph in an article:
Though it’s called Unigov, the Indianapolis solution falls far short of complete unification. Four cities within Marion County remain independent, and a number of towns have limited autonomy. Public safety services remain fragmented even within the Unigov boundaries. The center city still pays higher taxes than outer neighborhoods.

You get the idea.

I am not unabashedly for metropolitanism, just for what it’s worth. I do think there’s a place, but I doubt the two proponents here are going to be the people to bring it to us; the mayor hasn’t shown any large strokes of brilliance, and the executive’s drink tax spent any political capital he had, even if it is a clever way to solve his problem.
Derrick - April 08, 2008

apparently the magic words are Unigov

“Unigov” is only one word. :-)

Yeah, I get it.

One solution that has been proposed has been to allow smaller or rural communities to “disincorporate.”

Right now in Pennsylvania, every square foot of land must be inside an incorporated municipality. That’s not the case in many other states; unincorporated communities are part of the county government.

I think we could easily glomp Allegheny County down to 30-odd municipalities, and I think we could merge many city and county services.

But I’m not interested in any full scale combination with the city of Pittsburgh until they cut costs. They’ve dragged their feet on all of the ideas proposed by the Act 47 and fiscal oversight boards.

Maybe I’m overly suspicious of the two personalities involved, but I’m not buying this.
Webmaster - April 08, 2008

Interesting metaphor, but I think it’s flawed on its face (but surprisingly apt upon further review): Studebaker managed to put out a good-looking product, and was the first with new cars after WWII, but overall, got squeezed out by the big boys with more money and more options. Packard was unable to adapt, and 50 years after revolutionizing the industry with the first production V-12, didn’t get around to a good V-8 until they were at death’s door.
Infer from all this what you will (besides, of course, the fact that I’m a nerd).
Vince - April 08, 2008

At the risk of losing the room — I see your argument, but raise you Studebaker’s refusal to license its automatic transmission technology, and Packard’s reluctance to merge with Nash.

You’re right that Studebaker got clobbered in the sales war in 1953 between Chevy and Ford, but many of its wounds were self-inflicted. We all remember how sleek the 1953 Studebaker coupes were, but they out of step with the market, and the Studebaker sedans that year were ugly.

As for Packard — the decision to push the brand down-market in 1949 by basing all of its new cars on the medium-priced Clippers was a fatal error. It was as bad as Cadillac bringing out the Cimarron, but at least in Cadillac’s case, they still had the more expensive models.

In Packard’s case, they no longer had the fancy, upscale models, and the brand lost all of its prestige.

You’re listening to Antique Defunct Car Talk. We’re your hosts, Vince and Jason, and you’re right, I’m not getting much sex.

I can’t speak for Vince, but he just got married. (So he’s not getting any either! Ba-dum-bump!)
Webmaster - April 08, 2008

Everyone’s a comedian.
And actually, Packard started pushing downmarket when it
A. Introduced the 120 and its cheaper cousin, the 110, and
B. Gave away its body styles to Russia.
And we did lose the room…unless the room’s in Warren, Ohio, or some sections of Detroit.
Vince - April 08, 2008

You know, the national Packard museum isn’t too far away from you. It’s in beautiful, scenic downtown Dayton. Jump on I-75, and you’re there.

It’s well worth a Saturday afternoon: http://www.americaspackardmuseum.org/
Webmaster - April 08, 2008

This is interesting. 1) It is a decent analogy, but the argument about S-P merger will go on forever. 2) Why should the county bail out the city….similar to the new drink tax to save the Port Authority (I ride the bus sometimes) 3) That is my car, and yes it makes a decent comuter car, 17mpg in oakland traffic isn’t bad for a 40 something year old car. Its fun, a little slow but who cares when you sit on Bates for an hour or two everyday any way.
JRK - April 08, 2008

Where do you park your car for work, for heaven’s sake – Aspinwall?
Prof. Windbag - April 08, 2008

Goddamn, I love the Interwebs.

JRK —- Major props to you! I had a big cheese-eating grin on my face when I saw your car there. The guys at the lot said, “What, are you in love? You look like you want to date it.”

I wrote here about three years ago my desire for either a Rambler convertible or a Lark Wagonaire, so you’re my new hero.

Alas, I am not buying any more cars until I get the Diplomat running again.

Right now she’s sitting in the garage, waiting for me to get the timing straightened out … I put a new ignition system on her and she runs like crap. I think the distributor/rotor is way off, but I haven’t had time to troubleshoot it.
Webmaster - April 08, 2008

To comment on any story at Tube City Almanac, email tubecitytiger@gmail.com, send a tweet to www.twitter.com/tubecityonline, visit our Facebook page, or write to Tube City Almanac, P.O. Box 94, McKeesport, PA 15134.