Most of my friends in Pittsburgh believe everyone else here hates change. I used to think that too, but now I'm not so sure. I think Pittsburghers view change no differently than anyone else: a large percentage fear and therefore oppose it; an even larger percentage are ambivalent about it; and a very, very small percentage embrace it. What perhaps sets Pitts- burghers apart from the rest of the world is that most of the important, local changes have been bad, in some cases very bad.

		Mark DeSantis is a management consultant and adviser and an adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University (mark_desantis@ msn.com). He lives Downtown.

Why shouldn't they fear change? After all, continuous job and population loss has been an on-again and off-again fact throughout the lifetime of most us here. I suspect what some Pittsburghers fear and therefore reflexively oppose is not change but change that inevitably always seems to bring more bad things. It is this fear that all change is inherently bad that is paralyzing us. It is this fear that anyone trying to make big change here must confront head on and with heroic effort. The change agents of our community must deal in the politics of reality. We have no choice; three large changes are staring us in the face: complete restructuring of city government; row office reform; city-county consolidation.

Advocates and opponents of each are already having at each other with gusto. However, as anyone who has every tried to change the views or attitudes of more than one person at one time knows, advocates for the status quo almost always have the upper hand. I speak from personal experience. I was a member of a group of volunteers who unsuccessfully tried to effect one of the changes above directly. We learned a thing or two about ourselves, our cause and Pittsburgh.

For the record here is where I stand on the above: I'm hopeful about the possibilities in the first item, an unabashed supporter of the second; and (for reasons that deserve a long discussion) I'm currently ambivalent about the third. Where are you? If you want to make these changes and, more importantly, if you want them all at once, you have the Herculean task of creating an integrated, clear, and compelling picture of a whole new reality of our community.

Such a picture must first pass a personal "gut check." It just must feel right for where and what we are as a community and who we are as Pittsburghers. We cannot superimpose some sort of best practices vision (an overused word if there ever was one) on ourselves. Yes, let's look at and borrow from Louisville, Ky.; Minneapolis; and Turin, Italy, or wherever. But for crying out loud, lets get on with it.

And governmental changes like these are by no means just about saving money. In fact, if this is the main justification for doing them then, unless you're talking about saving a whole lot of money right now, then they're going to lose. In fact, they're probably not even worth doing.

If you're pushing change you must see or accept that there are the bigger issues. These changes, together and separately, represent a clean sheet of paper. How exciting this truly is. As strange as this may sound, it is comparable to the excitement and sense of purpose felt by those early Pittsburghers when they elected their first prothonotary! Now times have changed, and we must embrace whole new reality.

Changes like these are even more than they appear to be. If you advocate a complete restructuring of your government, which is what each of these changes represents, shoving a simplistic cost/benefit calculation in front of the community and expecting them to embrace it is at best naive. Whatever you may think of your local government, these institutions are embedded in the culture of the region; and simply advocating "cutting them out" without replacing them with a new reality of our community opens up a culture and political war that the change agents will lose. And that brings us to the messy piece of business about change.

Some people in positions or formal authority or influence will never get with the (change) program. The staunchest of them must be swept aside. Let's face it: No amount of effort, compromise or bargaining will bring them along.

There is a line that you cross when your propose change. Beyond that line you've watered down your proposal to the point that it becomes an act of symbolism rather than substance. If you're rallying the good will and energy of countless citizens to join you in taking the risk of change, then the least you can do is ensure that the change you advocate is real and lasting. Go for broke. Know precisely your point of no return and never, ever cross it.

If you advocate even one of the changes above, you've got your work cut out for you. Lay out the costs and benefits for sure. But get to the larger and most important vision of what better government can and will mean for Pittsburgh and the region. Avoid empty political rhetoric and cliches. Make the larger consequences for these changes as real and tangible as possible. Speak about a Pittsburgh that is better than anything we've known to date. Dare I suggest one element of this new reality: a local government that sets a new national standard for quality and performance.

The politician who once said, "Any jackass can kick a barn down," intended it as a warning to anyone seeking to construct new realities. Someone and some group must begin work on this new picture of reality. Provisional credit must currently go to barn builders such as state Rep. Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods, and county Chief Executive Dan Onorato, a Democrat. However, there are many others as well.

Needless to say, there are outspoken opponents of change as well. Some will never be won over while others merely need to see a better, tangible reality. Let us focus on that vast group of Pittsburghers, open but somewhat fearful of change. Perhaps we owe it to them to show what is at stake after all.