27 October 2011

Regular auditing may prevent law school dishonesty

By Dana Giallonardo, Juris Staff Writer
In February of 2011, Villanova University School of Law revealed that “unidentified individuals” knowingly reported inaccurate admissions data, including the LSAT scores and grade point averages of entering classes, to the American Bar Association (ABA) and U.S. News and World Report for years prior to 2010. Subsequent to the investigation, Villanova fired or accepted the resignations of at least three admissions officials and a dean.

While it might seem like old news to some, the problem has again resurfaced – this time at the University of Illinois College of Law. This past September, the University posted a press release on its Web site stating that, during four of the past 10 years, the Law School had reported inaccurate LSAT scores and grade point averages for the entering classes to both the ABA and U.S. News and World Report. The inaccurate data was used to compute U.S. News and World Report’s “Best Law Schools” ranking for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 editions.

Villanova Univ. was sanctioned 
for reporting inaccurate law school 
statistics to the A.B.A. and U.S. 
World and News Report.
While the desire to provide misleading statistics may be due to the U.S. News and World Report law school rankings, which come out every year and have an inarguably strong influence on prospective law students, another factor might be the pressure universities, law schools, or deans put on their administrators. Nevertheless, guesses as to why employees of these institutions would knowingly inflate data would be mere speculation.

What has perpetuated this type of behavior is the fact that the ABA does not perform any regular auditing on self-reported law school statistics, with a representative only examining each school’s record as part of its accreditation visit every seven years.

Univ. of Ill. has falsely reported 
statistics that have led to their #23
law school ranking.

It has been suggested that the Law School Admissions Council should be the organization that reports these statistics in order to ensure accuracy. The Council is the organization responsible for administering the LSAT and operates the central assembly service, a centralized computer application that holds the records for every enrolled law student and is used by nearly all of U.S. law schools. So far, there are no plans for the Council to take over.

The ABA is reviewing proposed rule changes for institutions that engage in misleading admissions reporting. Although U.S. News and World Report did not alter any prior rankings, the ABA imposed sanctions on Villanova, mandated at least a two-year audit of the school’s reported statistics, and required Villanova to post a notice of censure on its Web site for the next two years. The University of Illinois has not been sanctioned.

The outcry surrounding this controversy has far exceeded the bounds of law school academia and has transcended into the general population. Not only have these institutions - the very institutions that champion the principles of honesty and ethics in order to cultivate the future lawyers of America - acted dishonestly and in bad faith to inflate rankings and perceptions; they have necessarily brought to light the greater ramifications of academic rankings and what effects they have on the institutions making them, the students attending these institutions, and the potential students using them in deciding what school to attend. Leading the outcry are groups and organizations, most notably an organization called Law School Transparency, that have recently developed in order to encourage the greater need for accuracy in reporting.

Law School Transparency, a non-profit organization that was formed in 2009 by two Vanderbilt Law School graduates, has sought to facilitate a more open system of rankings and reporting data by offering “consumer protection” to potential law students. The organization encourages the transparent flow of information so that prospective students pick law schools not just based on a law school’s annual ranking, but based on which school best matches their personal objectives. The organization also offers the “ABA Watch,” a program that strives to monitor the consumer information that law schools release to the public in order to better regulate law school reporting.

While these organizations certainly bring to light the necessity of monitoring statistics, there is no doubt that change must come from within the institutions that report these statistics.

Joe Campion
Joe Campion, the Duquesne University School of Law Director of Admissions, said that at Duquesne Law School, false or misleading reporting simply does not occur. While in part this can probably be attributed to certain safeguards that have been put in place, particularly the fact that the admissions process is overseen by the Admissions Committee, including the Dean and Associate Dean, it’s more about the philosophy of the Admissions Committee, Campion said.

“We at this institution always try to keep our mission in mind,” Campion said of the reporting process. “It’s about providing opportunities for individuals. That mission has been around before U.S. News and World Report.”

Campion also went on to say that, as Admissions Director, he strives to choose students by reading their files, and not merely data.

“Character is important,” Campion said. “Students may very well be making decisions based on law school rankings, but I hope they base their decisions on more than that.”

The potential ramifications of misleading reporting in this sphere are non-life-threatening. Students will continue to apply to and be accepted into the over 200 law schools we now have in the United States and these institutions will continue to produce great lawyers. But what is rocked at its very foundation is the idea that rankings somehow govern what kind of experience is available or what kind of lawyers these students will turn out to be. Sure, they give potential students a basis in discerning which institutions are most competitive - but as far as the experience, the quality of education and the soundness of professional standards go – these things clearly can’t be measured by numbers.

Dana Giallonardo is a Staff Writer for Juris Magazine. She earned her undergraduate degree from Lehigh University in 2010, where she majored in Journalism and minored in Communications and Creative Writing. While at Lehigh, Dana was an Assistant Editor on the Brown and White student newspaper. Dana will graduate from Duquesne University School of Law in June of 2013. She can be reached at Giallonardod@duq.edu.

25 October 2011

How DNA convicted and ultimately freed Amanda Knox



By Gabrielle Carbonara, Juris Blogger
Four years ago, when Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede were convicted of the murder and sexual assault of British exchange student, Meredith Kercher, the Italian Government’s case relied largely upon DNA evidence.  While appealing their arrest and conviction, it is this evidence that was the primary issue.

According to the Italian government, DNA belonging to both Knox and Sollecito, an Italian graduate student, was found on a a bra hook belonging to Kercher and on the handle of a knife that was allegedly used in the murder.  On its face, this seemed like an open and close case; the police found the couple’s DNA meaning there was less than a one in a million chance that anyone could have committed the murder. This case, however, was not as simple as it seems.

The case rested on poorly collected and contaminated DNA evidence which was analyzed using a process called Low Copy Number (LCN).  This process is completed by using a very small sample and then copying each component found and assigning that component a number.  An article on Legalweek.com described the process as a fishing expedition, where “a small drop is turned into pond and the experts go fishing for components and try to agree which components are present.”  This process can be unreliable because each dip into the sample could have a different component and the components that appear most frequently are the ones that are included in the sample.  Sometimes a statistic is given to show how many other people could likely have the same DNA.  If such a statistic is unavailable, though, these samples could still be used to show that the accused person was not excluded as a suspect even though it could not be ascertained how many other people could also be included as a suspect.

Here, both defendants’ DNA was found on the bra clasp and on the handle of a typical kitchen knife, which, incidentally, was found in a kitchen drawer and said to not have been the actual murder weapon.  These DNA samples were microscopic.  Independent experts said that the Italian Police had poorly handled, collected and analyzed the evidence which put Knox and Sollecito behind bars, for 26 and 25 years, respectively.  Experts from the United States also reviewed this DNA evidence and expressed their concerns that the Perugia police mishandled the samples.  In addition to the suspicions that the evidence was poorly obtained, Discovery News reported that the Italian prosecutors “used a DNA detection limit far below that of the independent U.S. experts or the FBI in determining the presence of blood DNA on the blade, which made contamination a much more likely source of the genetic material.”

It seems that the Italian police and prosecutors were anxious to find Kercher’s murderers and forced the evidence to quickly fit their theory, that Knox and Sollecito were a young, sinister couple who viciously assaulted and murdered Knox’s roommate, rather than carefully and correctly collecting the evidence and allowing it to lead them to the true murderers.  Although what actually happened the night of Kercher’s murder has still not been determined, earlier this month an Italian appellate court acquitted Knox and Sollecito and the two were released after spending four years in an Italian prison.  The third defendant, Rudy Guede, is still serving a 16 year sentence but maintains he is not responsible for Kercher’s death.

Gabrielle Carbonara is currently a 2L at Duquense University. She is a student administrative assistant at the Duquesne University School of Law Career Services Office, the Treasure of the Italian-American Society and the Academic Chair of Phi Alpha Delta. Gabrielle earned her undergraduate degree at Duquesne University in Sociology with a concentration in Criminal Justice and a minor in History. She will graduate from Duquesne Law School in 2013 and can be reached at carbona1@duq.edu.

20 October 2011

Keeping work and life separate can be difficult

By John Price, Juris Staff Writer
Looking back on the September 24th Duquesne Law Centennial Gala, there were many moments that stand out reminding us of our school's proud heritage. I was especially captivated by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s address regarding what it means to be a Catholic law school. But since that event, the moment most poignant was a little speech Justice Scalia gave at the Power Center Ballroom luncheon. As a member of the Executive Board of the Duquesne University School of Law Student Bar Association, along with other heads of the law school organizations, I was honored to be invited to take part in this momentous event.

Time sheets and billable hours go a long way in defining young attorneys
During the luncheon, Justice Scalia gathered all the students in attendance for a question and answer session. Aside from talking about how to write “like Scalia” or different approaches to looking at the law, I was most interested in Justice Scalia’s thoughts on what it means to define oneself. Justice Scalia discussed how we as lawyers should not be defined simply by our work, or, even worse, by a time sheet.

My first reaction was to think that it is easy for a Supreme Court Justice to suggest that. I realized Justice Scalia was trying to state his opinion on what the practice of law should be, but in today’s legal profession this is not the case.

Law students who have had summer associate positions or currently hold part time jobs at firms realize they are identified by their time sheets. As someone who is just starting out in the profession, associates are often recognized for how much time they bill. Although I agree with Justice Scalia’s message that a law student's, and to an extent all lawyers, first priority should be to their personal responsibilities regardless of the job, we as young lawyers cannot afford to be this idealistic. As a law student and, hopefully, future attorney, we should realize that a seat on the Supreme Court is far away and starting out we will be defined by this little piece of paper. We should embrace this fact in order to better understand the rigors, responsibilities, and rewards of being an attorney.

Knowing and embracing this truth, a law student should always identify where the line is between work and life. This approach can help any law student or lawyer in avoiding being narrowly defined. So, in retrospect, Justice Scalia’s speech has made me evaluate where this line is, so that I will not only defined by my law school career, but hopefully something more.

John M. Price is currently the Vice President of the Duquesne University School of Law Student Bar Association and will graduate from the University's School of Law program in June 2013. Prior to law school, John attended The Pennsylvania State University, Smeal College of Business, where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Marketing. He can be reached at pricej1@duq.edu.

18 October 2011

Collegiate athletes have no right to tweet

By Elizabeth Hall, Juris Blogger
Can a public university ban certain students’ use of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook? Yes, and it is happening. Many public and private university coaches are currently banning the use of social media among their student-athletes.

The NFL has been enforcing rules prohibiting their players from posting messages on social media websites starting 90 minutes before kickoff and ending only after postgame media obligations are fulfilled. Cincinnati Bengal player, Chad Ochocinco, fell victim to this gag rule when he was recently fined $25,000 for tweeting during a preseason game this past August. The NFL is well within its rights to place such restrictions on their athletes because it is a private organization and the players are their employees. While the NFL may enforce restrictions due to the employer-employee relationship they enjoy, the NCAA firmly maintains that student-athletes are not employees of their schools. How then can college football coaches, such as Boise State’s Chris Petersen, South Carolina’s Steve Spurrier, Kansas’s Turner Gill, and basketball coaches Mississippi State’s Rick Stansbury and Villanova’s Jay Wright, ban their student-athletes from using social media? 

Many argue this overly broad limitation violates the student-athletes’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This blanket restriction does not only just prohibit the content of what the students tweet or post, but the use of social media altogether.

In Morse v. Frederick, a 2007 case involving a student who wore a t-shirt with a message that was believed to promote illegal drugs to a school-sponsored event, the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment privilege is limited. The Court ruled that schools may suppress student speech at a school-supervised event, and in this case, the content of the offending t-shirt was prohibited. The fact that he wore a t-shirt that had writing on it was not prohibited. Therefore, comparing this decision to the issue here, the content of what the student-athletes were tweeting on Twitter and posting on Facebook would be prohibited only if it were deemed inappropriate for a school-sponsored event. However, the use of social media, just as the act of wearing a shirt with writing on it, does not fall under these broad restrictions.

In constitutional issues, courts use strict scrutiny as the standard of judicial review. This is the most stringent standard and it is used to weigh the government’s interest against a constitutional right. To pass strict scrutiny, the law must satisfy three tests. First, the law must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. Second, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. And third, the law must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, and there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the same means.

Applying strict scrutiny to an infringed constitutional right, such as freedom of speech, appears to make prohibiting the use of social media unconstitutional. The restriction could have been more narrowly tailored, e.g. by coaches saying their players are “not allowed to tweet on the day of the game,” in order to prevent distractions. Or, in order to prevent players from giving away team plays and secrets, under a strict scrutiny application, the coach should say players are “not allowed to tweet about practice or any other team privileged information.” So, while social media restrictions on student-athletes may appear unconstitutional, the coaches have a legal basis for such rules. Student-athletes are not employees in the strict legal sense, as they have voluntarily joined the team. While there is a constitutional right to free speech, there is no constitutional right to play football.

These players are not employees of the college or university, but members of a voluntary club. Therefore, while the university cannot place restrictions such as banning social media on the players, their coaches can.

The relationship between a university and an athlete may look like an employer-employee relationship due to the fact that student-athletes are often paid in scholarships and the university might profit from athletic events. But strictly speaking, the athletes are not technically employees, and therefore, may be subject to such restrictions like the banning of social media as well as a number of “team rules.”

Elizabeth Hall is currently a second-year student at Duquesne University. She is the Treasurer of the International Law Society and a member of the Family Law Society. Elizabeth earned her undergraduate degree at Lafayette College in Easton, PA, majoring in Art History and English. She will graduate from Duquesne Law School in 2013 and can be reached at halle1@duq.edu.

11 October 2011

The man behind the Amanda Knox acquittal

By Jennifer Dickquist, Juris Staff Writer
For the past four years, we all have heard various updates about the Amanda Knox case in Perugia, Italy. This past Tuesday she was released from the Italian prison following a jury overturning her conviction of murder. This was a long legal battle between an American citizen and an Italian court. But how did her conviction get overturned? Who was the lawyer heading the battle?

Photo courtesy of Reuters Pictures
Simon speaks at a press conference following Knox's return to the U.S.

The man was Theodore Simon, who is a practicing defense lawyer in Philadelphia, P.A.. He was a graduate of American University and Temple Law School. He is a well respected lawyer throughout Pennsylvania and has won many peer awards including “Best Lawyers in Philadelphia” and “SuperLawyer.” Mr. Simon has worked on many famous cases. Besides Amanda Knox, Mr. Simon was involved in the Clipper Jones civil case and Alain Robert (skyscraper climber). He is currently the second Vice President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

This very experienced lawyer worked for Amanda Knox in Italy to get her conviction overturned based on the issue that the DNA was not properly handled in the original investigation. He also attempted to rid the media propaganda of the view that Knox is a “devil.” Her family has incurred over a million dollars in legal fees based on the work at Theodore Simon and his team did, which is an incredibly large bill.

On talks of appeal, Simon has stated that Italy does not have the same sweeping review that Supreme Courts in the United States does. While the Italian prosecution has stated that they will challenge the newest verdict, the defense does not believe that a challenge will stand. Only time will tell if this is the end of the Amanda Knox saga. However, Simon has told the media that the defense feels legally strong on this overturn and believes it will hold.

Jennifer Dickquist is currently a 2L at Duquense University. She is a research assistant at the Duquesne Center for Legal Information and a part of the Bill of Rights Clinic. Jennifer earned her undergraduate degree at LeMoyne College in Syracuse, N.Y. With a major in political science. She will graduate from Duquesne Law School in 2013 and can be researched at dickquistj@duq.edu.

05 October 2011

New charges shed light on prison abuse



By Jenna Smith, Juris Blogger
Sodomy. Rape. Hate. Shanks. These are all of the words that come to mind when I think of the HBO series, Oz. Oz is about a fictional group of prisoners in Oswald State Correctional Facility, a maximum-security prison, whose location is unknown for the entirety of the series. The plot centers on the prisoners housed in “Emerald City,” nicknamed “Em City” by the prisoners. The inmates are comprised of different groups: the “Homeboys” (the African Americans), the Muslims, the “Wiseguys” (the Italians), the Latinos, the Irish, the Aryans, the Bikers, the Gays, etc. – the list goes on. The show follows the struggles these inmates face while in prison, highlighting the social and racial tension between the different groups. The inmates fight amongst themselves over anything and everything: the illicit drug trade they run, the kitchen duties they are assigned, which new inmate will suffer the fate of being sodomized his first night in confinement, so forth and so on. While all of this is going on, the corrections officers turn a blind eye, or worse, become involved. Some of the officers help to run the drug trade; others help to set up prisoner-on-prisoner violence and killings; others have wanted and unwanted sexual relationships with the inmates. I am a big fan of this series and I truly feel it provides a lot of insight into the dynamics of our country’s prison system. However, I thought while watching the show, many of the events that take place are so overly dramatized and unrealistic. A corrections officer surely could never involve his or herself in such unsavory and illegal behavior?

This past summer, I received the opportunity to visit and tour a county jail as part of my internship. I was told to “cover up” – this meant to wear pants and no revealing clothing. I didn’t think that this was such an odd request until what came after. We were told to expect the catcalls and degradations coming from the inmates, but we were told that such conduct could come from some of the prison guards as well. This puzzled me. Weren’t corrections officers there to protect us? Perhaps I’m naïve, but I did not think this was possible. My trip to the county jail was pleasant, informative, and every member of the staff was welcoming and friendly. I suppose I did not understand what was meant until I read an article on CNN a few months later entitled, Authorities say prison guard charged with sexually abusing inmates. My eyes skimmed the article and there it was: Allegheny County, State Criminal Institution at Pittsburgh.

Photo by Michael Henninger, Post-Gazette
I couldn't believe it. A state prison in Pittsburgh had corrections officers under investigation for sexually abusing inmates. I quickly went to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette's website and searched the topic. A September 22, 2011 article by Rich Lord, entitled Lawsuit alleges SCI Pittsburgh guards sexually abused inmates, details the following: Corrections Officer Harry Nicoletti, Jr., age 59, faces ninety-two counts of institutional sexual assault, official oppression, terroristic threats, and simple assault.

Nicoletti, as well as other guards, are said to have targeted men charged with sex crimes, especially those against children. They also targeted homosexuals and transgendered individuals. Some former inmates allege the following: Nicoletti raped, slapped, and bribed one inmate and then exposed his genitalia to that inmate; Nicoletti rewarded one inmate for following orders to assault fifteen other inmates; one inmate was told to let other inmates fondle his genitalia and if he did not do so, he would be abused further; Nicoletti gave drugs to an inmate that were not prescribed to him; a transgender inmate alleged that Nicoletti raped him orally and anally. Not heinous enough for you? A former inmate stated that corrections officers ordered inmates to defecate, urinate, and place other bodily fluids into inmates’ food. Another former inmate alleged that he was given three choices: be anally raped, perform oral sex, or touch the officer’s genitals.

Nicoletti is not the only guard being accused of these acts; others are in the line of fire as well. A number of other officers are alleged to have participated in the activities with Nicoletti and higher positioned employees are accused of ignoring the activities of these officers. The initial hearing for Nicoletti is set for October 7th, 2011.

I find this all to be particularly disturbing. I am sure that some people are of the line of thought that go along the way of thinking, “Well if these inmates raped and abused others, like children, they deserve what Nicoletti and the other guards did to them.” I find it very hard to sympathize with those who hurt children, but this crosses the line. Prisons and jails are supposed to be places where the convicted can reform, correct their behavior, and pay back society for the harm they have caused. How can inmates do this when they are in constant fear of being abused sexually and physically by individuals of authority? Likewise, I highly doubt that “coercion” and “abuse of power” are in the job description for corrections officer.

In 2003, the Prison Rape Elimination Act was signed into law by George W. Bush. It requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics to carry out a yearly statistical review of prison rape. Under the auspices of this Act, the Bureau of Justice Statistics for the Department of Justice reported in 2007 that the prison population was around 1.6 million and in one year alone, 70,000 prisoners reported to have been sexually abused. Imagine the number of prisoners that did not report because of fear and intimidation. Likewise, one in 20 prisoners report being sexually abused. These statistics are alarming. You can read more about these statistics and male rape in prisons here. Although the Act aims to shed light into sexual victimization in prisons, I wonder if it is all the U.S. government can do now to address this problem. From the story surrounding the aforementioned Pittsburgh corrections officer, it is clear that these guards are not doing their jobs. It seems clear to me that those in Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections are just not doing enough to combat the atrocities that are being committed in our state’s prisons.

The sexual and physical abuse put forth in the show Oz provides viewers with entertainment. But the show Oz isn’t just entertainment. It speaks the truth of the state of the prison system in the United States. This system is filled with abuse of all sorts – physical, sexual, power, etc. Surprisingly, abuse is coming from corrections officers – the ones who are supposed to prevent such heinous acts from occurring. I should say not all corrections officers are bad people; many of them are good, law-abiding citizens. But the ones who are abusing their power are giving a bad name not only to their fellow officers but state employment and the prison system in general.

A prison sentence to a guilty defendant is supposed to provide justice to the victims of crimes. However, with such flagrant acts of abuse occurring within prison walls, the system is turning those it’s supposed to correct and rehabilitate into victims. The prison system, much like inmates, must be reformed. There are a lot bad people behind bars, but I think there are just as many bad people on the outside.

Jenna Smith is a second year student at Duquesne University School of Law. She is currently a judicial extern in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division and a student representative for Kaplan PMBR. Jenna earned her undergraduate degrees from the Pennsylvania State University, with majors in International Politics, Latin American Studies, and History, and minors in Spanish and Global Security. She will graduate from Duquesne University School of Law in 2013, and can be reached at smithj12@duq.edu.

04 October 2011

City taking steps towards Allegheny development

Graphic courtesy of www.pittsburghpa.gov

By Jeffrey Kranking, Juris Blogger
There are many things that bring people to the Strip District. It could be the Macaroni Company, Pamela’s world famous pancakes, Fresh bread from Mancinie’s, or the all too familiar fishy smell of Wholey’s. For me, it usually consists of chowing down on my favorite Polish food in the new Pittsburgh Public Market, or getting some Baklava from some of the many Greek and Turkish vendors. But, rest assured, no matter who you are, you do not head down the Strip to visit anything in the area north of Smallman St.

I know this because there is nothing there.

Just adjacent to the vibrant markets of Smallman St. and Penn Ave, there lies 40 acres of barren landscape, a testament to the rise and fall of heavy industry in Western Pennsylvania. I’ve always wondered what was to become of this urban wasteland. Will it sit in its unproductive, unfertile state, only to act as a giant gravel covered parking lot for neighboring Downtown? It may. But perhaps, with a little luck, it will be put to better use.

In February of 2011, the City released the Allegheny Riverfront Vision Plan, intended to reestablish neighborhoods toward the riverfront by creating new means of transportation, housing and business and is posed to create as many as 5,000 new jobs bring in an annual $6 million in new tax revenue for the City. The Plan consists of a collaborative effort from both public and private interest groups in the redevelopment of over 80 acres of the southern Allegheny Riverfront stretching 6.5 miles from the Strip to Highland Park.

The development proposal covers over 80 acres, 
stretching from the Strip District to Highland Park.
The recently submitted proposal, largely developed by Perkins Eastman, a Pittsburgh based international architectural and urban development firm, is under the direction of a 16-member Steering Committee consisting of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), Neighbors in the Strip, Lawrenceville Corporation, City Planning, and the Pittsburgh Riverlife Task Force to name a few.

The creation of the proposal is largely the result of the partnership between the URA and the Buncher Company, a private Pittsburgh based real estate development group. Buncher owns major acreage in the Strip from 11th to 21st St., and in Lawrenceville from 43rd to 48th St., thus making it a key player in the riverfront plan. These sites along with those owned by the URA, including the 62nd St. Industrial Park (the former Tippins International site) and the Strip district Produce Terminal, total 80 acres of land and will be the focal points of the Allegheny Riverfront Plan. The focal points of the proposal are chiefly public projects initiated by the URA and the City of Pittsburgh in collaboration with the steering committee, with the assumption that the projects will attract private investment for the later and less concrete parts of the plan.

One major focal point includes the development of the desolate 40 acres of Buncher owned property behind the Terminal building in the Strip. Here, the City and the URA will spend about 20 million in capital (likely to be paid through local, state and federal capital funds and tax increment financing) to prepare this site for redevelopment. At this stage, Buncher will then follow Perkins Eastman developed plan for the construction of the site. Major construction in this area entails a residential building consisting of at least 75 units north of the terminal building and four-story mixed-use commercial building adjacent to the 16th St. Bridge at Smallman St. The URA and Buncher will then continue to develop the other focal points in this manner. Buncher has also agreed in relocating industrial firms along its riverfront properties in the strip and along 43rd to 48th St. to the 62nd St. site creating space for riverfront access to Strip and Lawrenceville residents. The hope of deploying this development strategy, based on the partnership between public and private development groups, is to follow in the success of the public/private based development of the former LTV site into today’s South Side Works.

Though, the plan is 20 years in the making, with construction not planned until the beginning of next year, it may just have enough momentum to catalyze, bringing in much needed development to these areas. So hopefully, while devouring a plate of greasy perogies on some distant Saturday morning in the Strip, I will be able to look north of Smallman and maybe see…something.

Jeffrey Kranking is a second year student at Duquesne University School of Law. He is member of the Urban Development Clinic as well as a staff writer for the Business Law Journal. Jeffrey earned is undergraduate degree at the University of Pittsburgh, with majors in both Political Science and History. He will graduate from Duquesne University School of Law in 2013, and can be reached at krankingj@duq.edu.