of Pittsburgh Bill No. 5 (2002) Public Notice
- Pittsburgh City Council Bill No. 5 -2002 [NID/WeHav]
Public Notice -
..mailed to the addresses of many, but not all,
of the to-be-affected addresses,
not to the owners' names, nor to the name
of any lessees.
State House Bill 1142 - Neighborhood Improvement Districts -
- the Pennsylvania neighborhood improvement districts
[NID] law -
HB1142 enacted/Act 2000-130
PDF file of HB1142,
obtained from the above link in 2002 [45 KB] <click>
||Archive of texts
of "update" postings to this website
- beginning the week of 14 april 2002.
|6 June 2002
Improvement Districts, and No-vote_ing
PULP weekly paper - essay/article [original full text]
|27 June 2002
to City Council from a Crafton Heights resident
delivered prior to July2 vote on passage of Bill No. 5
|30 June 2002
draft of a personal research tool dissecting the HB text,
use of which first revealed to me non-compliances with the NID law. (pjs)
|12 July 2002
||essay - "Aren't
law-makers supposed to follow the law when making laws?"
re: the passage of Bill No.5 in July 2002
|15 July 2002
||Food for thought about
legal challenges - from a Westwood resident.
|28 July 2002
||a bit of Home equity
re: the Illinois State home eq law, etc.
||a revealing chart
comparing homeq programs in other states
compiled in a study conducted for the organization "10,000 Pennsylvanians."
||essay - "A
look behind WeHav" -
about the State NID law hidden behind and underlaying theWeHav plan.
.doc file [29K]
ad hoc coalition of residents..."
commentary describing the Termination Request ACTION.
Number 47 Allegheny Institute
for Public Policy
- think-tank looks at the Pa. NID law - Act 2000-130 .pdf
Number 48 Allegheny
Institute for Public Policy
- think-tank looks at the Pittsburgh WeHav plan .pdf
|15 January 2003
Letter delivered to Pittsburgh City Council
-asking Council members to find their own answers to a series of
which would reveal to each member some of the facts why they should not
transfer $150,000 of City funds to the "illegitmately-designated"
managing authority (the NIDMA) of the "illigitimately-established"
District 2 NID for start-up of the WeHav plan.
|13 February 2003
to the Jan.15 Open Letter to Pittsburgh City Council,
-answers all Council members should know,
and despite which, they unanimously agreed to transfer the funds.
|13-page "WEHAV Board By-laws for Public View",
noted in WEHAV's letter to property owners, the week of 26 January 2003;
to be approved at a public meeting in Sheraden on February 6.
.pdf file [989K]
|5 February 2003
relating to various aspects of the WEHAV by-laws.
|17 Feb. 2003
||a link to the February
17 Post Gazette article <click>
||the WEHAV "appraisal-policy"
and notice of 17 July 2003 meeting at the Sheraden Seniors' Center.
Note that this "appraisal-policy" has changes from the Feb. 2002
Bill No.5 Public Notice documents, and if there were a Final Plan, these
changes would not be permitted without "concurrence with the owners
of at least 60% of the property owners within the NID" [Section 5
of the NID law.]
This "appraisal-policy" is illegitimate.
"Invoice"owners began receiving the weekend of 12
comparison of a City of Pittsburgh
Tax Statement envelope - and the WEHAV-tax envelope
|23 October 2003
||ex tor tion 1. an obtaining of money, etc.
by threats, force,fraud, or illegal use of authority. 2. money, promise,
etc., obtained in this way.
Today a "past
due" notice arrived to those who have refused to pay the
WEHAV tax/"fee". It includes a bit of propaganda pitch for WEHAV
& WEHAV-promoter Councilman Hertzberg's once-denied grandstanding frivolous
lawsuit against the City in "defense" of the Zone 4 Station;
(take note that the Councilman is running for a County judgeship in next
That lawsuit claims the City is not adhering to the very State NID law
(Act 130-2000) which the City AND the Councilman have been ignoring all
along in illegitimately establishing and starting up the District 2 NID