Under Coleman's leadership, and against prepared opposition, a senate committee yesterday voted to issue a subpoena to Pat Browne requesting information pertaining to Allentown's NIZ. The NIZ has diverted over $half a $billion in state tax revenue for the private real estate empire of a couple local developers
.“The department’s arguments about taxpayer confidentiality are a smokescreen, because no data about individual taxpayers has been requested and confidentiality will be maintained” Coleman said. “The secretary is going to extraordinary lengths to hide this information from legislators and the people we represent. When this much effort is put into preventing people from seeing what’s going on, it casts a cloud of suspicion over the program and the people responsible for properly using the half-billion dollars in tax money. Ultimately, the information included in the subpoena is necessary to determine whether the program is a success or an expensive boondoggle.”Before the committee voted to issue the subpoena, state senator Christine Tartaglione spoke forcefully against it. While she claimed that the full body rejected such an effort previously, it was actually not passed because of a tie vote. Also lobbying against it was senator Jay Costa, who complained about violating the tax confidentiality of the NIZ beneficiaries. Coleman assured his colleagues that the information would be keep confidential by the appointed auditors. Tartaglione noted that she has been in the senate for thirty years. I assume that both she and Costa know Browne quite well, and that he appreciated their effort to restrain Coleman's attempt to gain proper disclosure about a questionable legislation cloaked in secrecy.
Although the subpoena asks the information within a certain time period, there may well be quite a struggle between asking and receiving the information. Taxpayers should be grateful to Coleman for his tenacity in regard to this matter.
What continues to make me suspicious is the party-line aspect of those voting against transparency. Democrats are stonewalling this despite the fact that Browne is a Republican and the main beneficiaries in the NIZ would hardly be called democrats.
ReplyDeleteIs it just because those same beneficiaries have spread a little bit of campaign cash around to politicians of both parties, or is there something much larger that democrat politicians are trying to hide?
The democrat party constantly touts itself as the party of the “little guy”, yet the party is working very hard to keep the “little guy” in the dark here. The fact that the former Mayor of Allentown - a democrat - is currently in prison for a pay-to-play scandal (not specific to the NIZ) makes me think that perhaps there are others being protected. The fact that Philadelphia (and other statewide) democrats are voting against transparency here tells me that those being protected aren’t just in Allentown.
As it did a decade ago, our “local” newspaper turns its blind eye away from the story and once again fails to ask these basic questions.
anon@7:06: the partisan lineup on these votes is interesting. Is it merely because Coleman is a Republican? Is Harrisburg that partisan? I hope to gain insight into that question. Meanwhile, this blog is proud of playing a major part in scrutinizing Pawlowski long before anyone else...and I can say the same about the NIZ.
DeleteLet’s be clear, not a “little bit” it is quite astounding.
DeleteThe donations that were previously to Browne from Reilly,Topper, and Jaindl prior to Coleman taking office were above 200,000. After Coleman defeated browne the relationship first transferred to the Gov as Reilly was placed on his transition team and then a 50,000 donation to Shapiro from Reilly. Last year the relationship of donors were transferred with all developers giving to Matt Bradford (democrat majority leader)and Jordan Harris (Democrat appropriations chair).
Why should full disclosure of who receives taxpayer money be an issue of privacy. Public money should negate that privacy. Only full transparency is required for a democratic system.
ReplyDeleteRay -
DeleteAgreed.
Politicians themselves fill out detailed financial disclosure forms when they run for office. Financial information is also routinely required for the principal owners or directors of entities receiving grant funds.
Yet suddenly there's a concern about the public being able to piece together individual financial data from the recipients of the largest municipal welfare program in the state?
That doesn't make sense, and to me seems to be evidence that something more is being hidden.
The old Quote Me, "McKinley McKinley and Gross" building is receiving a total facade all around. Just maybe it is a in kind gift for the protectors of farce. This has been a theft of services from the very start as the use of squed statistics garnered this boondoggle from the very beginning. Now for the most part the people that helped create this theft of services with word salads have widened there prospects of the entire area.
ReplyDeleteKeep after them in your big dig Mike because very important services are being skimmed from from the whole of PA's taxes!
"...this blog is proud of playing a major part in scrutinizing Pawlowski long before anyone else...and I can say the same about the NIZ."
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:06 here again.
Right you are, and that's the reason I continue to read (and occasionally post) to this blog. In general, people don't talk to each other about these things as much as they used to, and I appreciate the discussion this blog fosters on many issues.
One more point that I wanted to make clear:
In the Post-Gazette article you linked to yesterday, Rep. Samuelson (D) mentioned concerns about revealing the tax data of INDIVIDUALS. I believe other democrats have voiced similar concerns.
Could you show me one property downtown in the NIZ that is actually owned by an INDIVIDUAL? I haven't looked lately, but I'm willing to bet that they're all owned by corporations, large partnerships, or large LLC's (nobody owns a property in their own name anymore). Perhaps there are even multiple entities (for example, Building 1 LLC, Building 2 LLC, Building 3 LLC, etc.) that are under common (but not EXACTLY the same) ownership, which then get rolled into a management LLC. You know, those same type of large entities that democrats typically rail against for a multitude of reasons.
These corporations, partnerships, and LLC's could also have many owners at varying percentages of ownership, and the owners of the primary corporation, partnership or LLC could be another corporation, partnership, or LLC. Trying to track those percentages back to the impact on a single taxpayer's individual tax return is a very difficult undertaking, particularly for the very public that these democrat politicians supposedly represent.
So the confidentiality excuse put forth by democrats doesn't make sense and pass the smell test.
Which means the real question is if they're not protecting the information of NIZ owners (beneficiaries), which INDIVIDUALS are they protecting?
Again, it would be nice if the local press (or even other local blogs) would start asking these questions and put some more heat on the politicians that continue to stonewall the public.
Keep up the good work.
anon7:06: Actually they are mostly owned by one person, J.B. Reilly, under the LLC CityCenterRealEstate. But while that may be the excuse for the "confidentiality", it in itself is another failing of the NIZ. Although perhaps it was Browne and Reilly's intention for Reilly to have almost all the "little apple", was that Harrisburg's intention when approving the NIZ back in 2009?
Deleteanon, while you want to protect your identity, how about signing your comments at the end with a pen name? that would be less confusing for both of us.
By the way, a competent press would also be asking why Governor Shapiro appointed Browne as Revenue Secretary in the first place.
ReplyDeleteBrowne is hardly the only person in the state that could do the job, and you would think that his DUI record and history of burying significant legislation in unrelated bills (hiding it from both fellow politicians and the taxpayers) would have worked against him.
Yet despite all this, Shapiro chose Browne for a well-paying job that could have gone to a democrat.
Hmmmm....
The NIZ is not the Manhattan Project. Anytime public money is being spent on a civic improvement project, and the politicians are putting down smoke screens of privacy... says something really rotten is going on.
ReplyDeleteFull disclosure, When I found out Jarrod was planning to challenge Browne I did everything I could, through acquaintances to persuade him not to. Not that I harbored any positive views for Pat but didn't believe Jarrod had a snowballs chance in Hell of winning. I was wrong, not the first time. When he won good government won, transparency won, and the people won. Well done Jarrod. Perhaps we finally have a positive role model for the many slouches that populate state government.
ReplyDeleteBefore jumping in the water, please address whether it is the scope of the intergovernmental committee to be requesting anything? Wasn't it regarded in the finance committee just last week?
ReplyDeleteI believe that it was a tie vote in that committee, so while it didn't pass, likewise it didn't fail.
DeleteSo if you don't like the outcome, just try a different door. The question remains, is it an intergovernmental concern? Do tie votes go to intergovernmental committee?
DeleteIf memory serves me right it was the Intergovernmental committee that ended up in the commonwealth court last year over a subpoena related to election law and the commonwealth court ruled the legislature can make the request from any committee. Coleman was the chairman of the committee at that time and the decision is public giving him the green light.
DeleteI would imagine the senate leadership and legal team kept this ruling in their back pocket. Is always an interesting discussion when it centers around trying to quash a subpoena versus discussing the material being hidden.
I’m simple-minded enough to not have ever understood the need for confidentiality in this project that supposedly benefits residents. I’ve yet to understand the benefits other than we have a better looking downtown made up of mostly empty offices and unsustainable housing which really isn’t luxurious enough to call “luxury apartments.” The argument that the administration from LVHN has occupied these offices, therefore their tax dollars are captured within the NIZ always sounded hollow. We need full disclosure without editing by Mr. Browne.
ReplyDeleteWay to Go ! Micheal, and Ladies and Gentleman!!.....
ReplyDeleteThis is the way to hold Political "operatives",and their like, accountable....I think it all has been said here (Pro and Con).....Congrats, and keep up the good works.....PJF