A citizens advisory committee led by University of Pittsburgh Chancellor Mark Nordenberg recently recommended merging the Pittsburgh and Allegheny County governments. It included this tagline in the title of its report: "Forging a Bright Future -- Built on Unity, Efficiency, Equity and Equality -- for the People of Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh."

These are words that must be brought to life during the upcoming debate on a possible merger. For everyone, but for minority communities in particular, the words "equity and equality" cannot be mere aspirations; they must be manifest in any new governing compact.

Minority communities in Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania should welcome the spirit behind the chancellor's report. We must engage in the conversation and expand its boundaries, so that meaningful improvements in our lives are secured.

OPINION 250:

To commemorate Pittsburgh's 250th anniversary, the Post-Gazette Forum section is running articles throughout the year that explore how the region can build on its past to make a better future. Unsolicited viewpoints also are welcome for possible publication in the newspaper or at post-gazette.com. Send e-mail to: opinion@post-gazette.com (Please include Opinion 250 in the subject line.) • • • Post-Gazette coverage of the city's birthday

---

The merger conversation is important at this time in our history. Our local governments are fragmented and we continue to lose population and our competitive position in national and world markets.

It is hoped that a city-county consolidation would enhance our competitive position by allowing us to boast of a city of 1.2 million people, rather than a city of 330,000; and a city with a single executive voice, rather than two competing voices.

But remaking the city will require more than a cosmetic numbers game. It is doubtful that even the Census Bureau would list us as a single territory of 1.2 million without a footnote explaining the recent consolidation -- and the fact that 129 governments were administering our new city-county.

Corporate executives considering the pros and cons of moving to the Pittsburgh market would look at more than promotional materials boasting of 1.2 million people. They would closely examine the work readiness and skills of our labor force, the quality of our school systems, the service levels provided by our mass transit systems, the affordability of housing, the condition of our roads and bridges, the incidence of serious crime, demographic diversity, environmental cleanliness and the general quality of life.

Economic and demographic changes have significantly impaired the attractiveness of the region to outside companies, as well as to residents.

The Pittsburgh region has become more racially segregated over the past half-century. In the 1950s and '60s, local governments, following the lead of the federal government, began an openly discriminatory housing policy. They offered federally subsidized home-ownership programs that mostly benefited the mostly white suburbs, opening the path to wealth accumulation and the middle-class American dream. (Home ownership helps families send children to college or start a small business.) Black residents, on the other hand, were steered toward public rental housing and dispersed around the city and county, giving them little hope of accumulating wealth.

The collapse of steel production, coal mining and manufacturing was particularly hard on African Americans, who had nothing to fall back on. Racial segregation and poverty hardened. Schools declined and the number of dropouts increased. Narcotics and gun trafficking grew with the hopelessness and frustration of inner-city life, especially after the 1968 riots that followed the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

As whites fled to the suburbs, the effect was to create segregated municipalities reinforced by discriminatory housing and zoning laws. School districts reflecting local demographics reinforced racial and socioeconomic segregation. Subsidies for attractive development deals and infrastructure in the suburbs (roads, water, sewers, etc.) left our core urban community behind in favor of suburban sprawl.

Still, the city of Pittsburgh continues to be the primary place of employment and entertainment for our suburban bedroom communities. And even though Pittsburgh has lost half of its population and a lot of its tax base over recent decades, it still must maintain just as many roads, bridges, street lights and stop lights. It still must operate modern police, fire and ambulance services. It still must host the convention center, the cultural district and three professional sports venues, all of which provide tremendous value to the region but at considerable cost to the city.

Minority communities cannot afford to be timid in this conversation. We must speak boldly and clearly. Yes, we want the merger of the city of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, not because we believe it is such a significant step to go from 130 local governments to 129, but because the merger debate gives us an opportunity to address the equitable delivery of government services and distribution of economic opportunities. It gives us an opportunity to have candid discussions about how to heal regional racial and class divisions.

African Americans in Allegheny County, like all county citizens, deserve robust and effective government services, including responsive, well-staffed and professional police, fire, and emergency medical services, and active building code enforcement.

We are skeptical about "contracting out" our remaining city services, or city-county services, except where a provable efficiency can be established. Our history has taught us to be wary of unaccountable power. For example, we have observed privatized trash collection in other cities, where companies low-ball two-year bids until the government gets rid of its workforce and equipment, then double and triple their prices in succeeding contracts. This often comes at the expense of minority employees and taxpayers.

So you see, minority interests in a city-county merger go far beyond the question of whether a merged government would have adequate minority representation -- although that is important. They encompass a wide array of issues aimed at creating a rising tide that lifts all boats.

Therefore, I say to the minority community: Come one, come all; let us participate in this important debate and not be bound by a narrow focus on the merger of city and county services or the potential promotional opportunities of calling ourselves a city of 1.2 million people. This debate can be cosmetic, or it can be a real opportunity to make regional progress based on "equity and equality."