BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

merge with the county.

How about a parking tax

There's already one of those.

http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/finance/assets/forms/2009/2009_parking_tax_bulletin.pdf

Plus there is a plan afoot to lease the city owned garages to a private entity to shore up the city's MASSIVELY underfunded pension obligations.

@Lyle is probably right. You can only increase taxes on the already taxed so much. Pittsburgh's tax base needs to increase and that's only likely to happen if more area is added to the city. More business and more jobs would help, but that's obviously not easy to do in a hurry.

Of course, $7 a gallon gas might drive more tax paying property owners back into the city but..that's just a might.

How in the world would you convince the counties to merge?

First, let me state my bias. I am a law student at the Univ. of Pittsburgh.

Ok, let's get started. From the analysis above, it would seem to me that the appropriate plan of action would be to tax the suburbanites. Why not tax the students? We spend money in the city...Oakland would be quite a ghost town without students from CMU, Pitt, and Carlow eating, drinking, and buying stuff. I'm proud to say that I look for small businesses around where I live and go to school (East Lib and Oakland) to try and patronize before I go outside the city to a mall or something.

However, I can say that if I came in from the 'burbs, I'd probably be opposed to some suburbs tax also.

Honestly, Lyle makes a very good point in terms of merging with the county. At the very least, a shared-services system should be (if it's not already been) put in place. Cincinnati has a very similar problem as the City takes up only a small portion of Hamilton County and the rest of the county is splintered between too many municipalities to count. Shared services or merging may be the way to go. The only problem here (and this is a likely issue) is suburbanites not wanting their tax money to get spread over the whole county. You'd have to make a good case to them regarding what THEY'D get out of the deal. This could be lower overall taxes (since there's more going into the pot), or threat of higher parking taxes or other fees, i.e. congestion fees at rush hour (but threats are not the best approach).

Regardless of which approach is taken, the city needs to show better fiscal responsibility, accountability, and transparency. For example, maybe I'd feel less irked about the tuition tax if I knew that it wasn't disappearing down some dark hole in the City only to re-emerge in someone's pocket in which it shouldn't be.

@greenbike It all just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Between corruption and corporate tax loopholes it really leaves the burden on the people making average wages like Charles McCollester cited.

IIRC, didn't the city woo some larger businesses to the city by giving them a tax holiday, in the hopes that they would generate more jobs, more residents, and more tax revenue?

In 1907, Pittsburgh "merged" with the City of Allegheny. I'm sure all the municipalities around the county are remembering what that did for the North Shore and dreading how things might turn out for them.

I still dont understand how upmc is non profit

Well, in the most general sense, a non-profit is an company or organization that doesn't distribute the profits to owners or shareholders but reinvests those profits into whatever it is they're doing. I guess UPMC operates under that general premise.

I personally think there is a lot more injustice in For-Profit corporations that largely avoid paying corporate taxes. I have a few statistics rolling around in my head but can't seem to find the sources thereof.

Could pgh do something like a splost? A little extra sales tax could help the coffers. Maybe a non resident worker tax of some sort could be done as well.

In a very general sense, I'm for raising taxes to pay for the services we enjoy, especially at the city level, where the services in question are very directly relevant. But ideas like the tuition tax taste badly to me because they're based on an unfair assumption.

If you tax all people above a certain income level because you assume they can all afford it, then that's a fair assumption - almost even a tautology. (I realize I'm opening myself to lots of flaming since this is a pretty polarizing issue, but that's how I feel.)

If you tax all students on the assumption that they're rich kids from outside the city whose parents are paying for everything, then that's just not fair - being a rich kid from outside the city isn't part of the definition of being a student. Some of them are struggling to put themselves through school. On the other hand, considering my previous example, being above a certain income level IS built into the definition of being above a certain income level.

Also yes I'm a student, but a funded PhD one, so I wouldn't be affected.

An extra sales tax would not go over too well, since we already pay 7%. Income tax is also relatively high (a big reason why lots of people live outside the city, though some of that is offset thanks to the city's relatively low property taxes).

I agree with the OP--it's a tough situation for the city. That said, the city has also made some poor decisions, too, and that hasn't helped much.

I wasnt refering to more income tax for residents, but rather for those that work in the city but live outside.

Franky about the sales tax, yes its 7%, but isnt applied to groceries and clothing. Having lived in a few places where sales tax is as high as 10% with no exceptions, sales tax in pa is very nice. It doesnt penalize living expenses really, but does tax luxury items and the like, at least mostly.

@greenbike It all just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Between corruption and corporate tax loopholes it really leaves the burden on the people making average wages like Charles McCollester cited.

I agree---it really leaves a bad taste with me too, and not just because I live up the road from Bakery Square.

Can't say I'm the expert on the topic of taxation, but IIRC a lot of what the city can and cannot do is controlled by Harrisburg in one way or another. So what applies here has to apply equally to every other incorporated spot in PA.

Really, though, I think that $7 gas idea is more a likelihood than a possibility, and given that, if I had a few extra bucks, I'd be buying real estate in the city left and right, especially where it's easy to get around by bike.

Suburbanites commuting to work in the city now pay a $52 tax per year on that basis. Until recently that was only $10 per year--surely instituted when that was a much more significant sum, but in the 2000s, laughably small.

There are a number of structural problems with the city's finances. High pension costs and big non-profits ("corporate non-profits" as Kevin Ackland called them, which I'd say are chiefly the universities and medical facilities) buying up new land and thus taking it off the tax rolls.

There have been a number of proposals to consolidate the city and the county, and in fact the two are sharing some services that were previously duplicated on both levels and maddeningly inefficient (emergency services like 911 centers come to mind). There was a study a few years back that many Mon Valley boroughs should band together and form what it called "River City" in an attempt to centralize services and cut down on redundancy costs.

@ Greenbike

".Oakland would be quite a ghost town without students from CMU, Pitt, and Carlow eating, drinking, and buying stuff."

My response, with no personal attack towards you, is that there was a time long ago when non-students were the majority in Oakland. It was not a ghost town and in my opinion it was better. That could just be my perception though and I don't have any data to support that except my own memory.

I do know that oakland/pitt/upmc went on the warpath against music and art venues years ago and that is why you have to go to another area to see a decent show. The oakland business association has lied to and driven out quite a few local businesses to make room for paneras and what not. Same story is happening in the Southside right now.

It seems like the approach to luring people from the burbs into the city is to turn the city into a massive suburban cul-de-sac. Argh.

@ieverhart I'm pretty sure everyone who works in the city pays that tax, regardless of their place of residence.

That $52 tax is the "occupation tax" and yes, everyone does pay it.

"though some of that is offset thanks to the city's relatively low property taxes"

What they don't collect in property taxes, they more than make up for in school taxes.

@spakbros: no offense taken.

Actually, I appreciate hearing about the kind of things you mentioned b/c, as a more recent arrival to the city, that's something that I didn't know about.

What's this about the Southside? I'm curious.

And as for turning the city into the burbs, we already know how that one turned out---it was called urban renewal in East Liberty. Epic fail.

Urban renewal in East Liberty didn't fail simply because of Penn Circle (though it certainly didn't help). The surrounding neighborhoods (I grew up in Lincoln-Lemington) were experiencing white flight, and the creation of low income housing surrounding Penn Circle didn't help bring more people into the neighborhood to spend their money[1].

I suspect the South Side comment was directed at the South Side works.

[1] And how is the city getting people to bring their money back into East Liberty? Gentrification!

"[1] And how is the city getting people to bring their money back into East Liberty? Gentrification! "

If you can't count on the gentry to spend their money, then who can you count on?

BTW, the $52 OP tax is not just in the city, I paid that in Robinson as well. I think after the city jacked it up there was a court case and most/all places followed suit.

I haven't given the tax thing a lot of thought, but off the top of my head I wonder if students that live and work in the city could be made to pay taxes here instead of where mom & dad live. Give them an exemption where they only have to pay 1% and it's most likely no more out of their pockets, but the money goes where it should. I'm sure there are a million reasons why that wouldn't work, but it seems much better than the tuition tax to me.

Yeah, I'm concerned about the current "gentrification" b/c while I get a Target store out of it (yeees!) I'm not so keen on its effects and some of the other things going on.

My biggest concern currently is the City's proposed plan to buy up lots (as in parcels) of blighted land in (most likely) Larimer, or Homewood (maybe E. Liberty) and try to attract private capital to develop them. This plan was thrown out at one of Councilman Burgess's meetings a couple weeks ago that my neighbors attended and reported back on. Apparently Walnut Capital and ELDI were also present, so I'm guessing this plan is more than just a preliminary thing.

And please excuse my awful grammar. I seem to have lost the ability to write clearly after 9pm at night.

"[1] And how is the city getting people to bring their money back into East Liberty? Gentrification!"

While I'm sure several arguments could be waged about gentrification (good, bad, or inbetween), I'd say Pittsburgh has one of the lowest rates of gentrification around. When I visited D.C. this past summer, I can say I truly saw gentrification. The town is a petri dish for gentrification, with sky-high rents, socio-economic segregation, and entrepreneurs moving towards cheaper areas.

I can't say Pittsburgh has all the markings of a city on the verge of gentrification... the city lost over 50% of its population (676,000 in 1950, 334,000 in 2000). Houses can still be had for under $100,000 and rent isn't absurd here. While I recognize the potential for gentrification in areas such as East Liberty and the Northside, I would say that Pittsburgh is one of the cities least impacted by gentrification around.

I like your point, Jake. Pgh will be gentrifying in the deleterious sense only when you start seeing "Glass-Lofts*-style" developments sprouting up like weeds, without any public subsidies.

*http://www.ura.org/pdfs/showcase/glassLofts.pdf

Jake, agreed (and maybe "gentrification" was a strong word), but the potential is there. And you can't turn a blind eye to the city razing a bunch of low income development and moving the tenants to some other location. (Re)-developing neighborhoods should be a boon for the people that actually live there, not the people who live on the other side of the proverbial tracks.

It seems to me that socio-economic segregation is just a fact of life--I don't say that because I think it's okay, but I can't imagine how you fight it. Look at the development going on along Euclid in East Liberty. New houses start at 200,000+, with a group of renovations scheduled for the upcoming years. Current residents will simply be priced out of the neighborhood. It strikes me that the only way to get any sort of socio-economic co-habitation would be rental units with strict rent controls based on income. But even that would eventually become unfair, right? Why would someone pay, say, $800 a month for a flat when their neighbor might be paying $300, thanks to their income?

Again, I'm advocating socio-economic segregation. At all. And I know there are areas in the city that have some degree of mixed income housing. I just can't see how the current development plans will work for current residents.

I should add:

I think that the city is stuck in a rut with the mindset that the only way East Liberty can survive is to bring retail into the area. There is some sense that East Liberty is turning into a suburban shopping mall, loaded with big box retailers. There has to be better way to revitalize an area without simply telling people to SPEND MORE MONEY.

The flip side of this is the sort of development I saw in Lincoln-Lemington growing up. A neighborhood group, without ties to real estate developers, re-vitalized a block on Lincoln by converted an abandoned school into an apartment building for single parents and converting another building into hospice care. Both are still going strong nearly 20 years later, and I think the neighborhood is stronger.

Why would someone pay, say, $800 a month for a flat when their neighbor might be paying $300, thanks to their income?

According to ELDI their mixed-income initiative New Negley Place (or whatever it is called) has a waiting list at all rates.

Expanding on my post, I'm not sure what to think about the status of East Liberty or other neighborhoods that are possibly on the verge of pushing current residents out.

A walk through parts of DC or Atlanta with anyone that knows the history will leave a bad taste in your mouth for developers looking to make a buck and end up rooting whole classes of people from their homes, quite possibly with backing from their local governments.

As for ELib, more specifically, if you weren't aware, ELDI has a large amount of holdings in the neighborhood. These are both single and multi family units, a large number unoccupied. Personally, the fact that ELDI is a non-profit speaks volumes to me, there is no developer looking to maximize profits. I would much prefer ELDI to a ghost landlord (if they keep rates reasonable). I think their main interest should be in keeping face, not making enemies, keeping their name good in the history books, and we can put great hope in that they will keep the current residents' best interests at heart.

non-profit != non-evil

I'm not even sure there's a correlation.

^+1

Non-profit == less oversight.

Less oversight can be good. Or not.

@Lyle could you please read what I said? I didn't make blanket statements about non-profits and their goodness. I was saying in this one instance, where land development is in the mix, it is better to have an organization invested in the good name of the community rather than a group of private investors who really couldn't give a rats ass about the people who fill their buildings.

@reddan: that is a gross generalization

According to ELDI their mixed-income initiative New Negley Place (or whatever it is called) has a waiting list at all rates.

Good. I hope this continues.

Like I said, I'm not trying to rain on the parade there. I just hope things are being done in an equitable manner.

@reddan: that is a gross generalization

Yep. Most statements about categories of things and behaviors, rather than specific instances, are.

.....ELDI has done some good things (New Pennley Place, etc.) and some shady things. I've personally seen some of the shady things and so I'm not so sure about the connection re: non-profits necessarily being better. Similar to some of the hospitals in the city, non-profit doesn't mean you don't make a profit.

I would love to subscribe to that view (re: nonprofits being better)...but I can't anymore.

@dmtroyer - I'm not trying to pick a fight, I was just responding to one comment taken out of context: "Personally, the fact that ELDI is a non-profit speaks volumes to me, there is no developer looking to maximize profits."

I guess I read that as a blanket statement about non-profits and their goodness.

Personally, I can't say that the fact that they're a non-profit really means anything, except that I can't organize a leveraged buyout if I want to change their management.

I don't post regularly on here and just found this thread. I live in Highland Park, sell real estate, and ride bikes (mostly MTB over the last few years).

It seems to me that socio-economic segregation is just a fact of life--I don't say that because I think it's okay, but I can't imagine how you fight it. Look at the development going on along Euclid in East Liberty. New houses start at 200,000+, with a group of renovations scheduled for the upcoming years. Current residents will simply be priced out of the neighborhood. It strikes me that the only way to get any sort of socio-economic co-habitation would be rental units with strict rent controls based on income.

I agree that those houses are excessive for the neighborhood, but SOMETHING had to be done.

In my opinion, they should have built $125-175k houses like what are being put up in Garfield rather than $229-310k houses. The whole model is to bring values up so that the 600 and 700 blocks are comparable to the 800 and 900 blocks across Stanton Ave. This is because there are dozens of vacant 2400-3000 sq ft houses that are sitting and rotting...mostly on the south side of Stanton Ave. These houses (some with the "Green Renovation") banners will cost 100-150k to renovate plus the purchase price. Right now, the numbers don't work for small developers or ELDI to take on the projects. The majority of regular home buyers don't have the time, energy, knowhow or capital to bring the houses back to life.

As for the current residents...the home owners in that area are able to get grants or insanely low interest loans to fix their houses. There is also a push to get absentee landlords and slumlords out of the area. I've been through many properties in that area and the conditions that some people live in is just above third world standards.

There are many more subsidized apartment units being built in or around East Lib than new construction housing or condos. There are probably only 20-30 for-sale residential units that have been built versus hundreds of rentals.

http://www.popcitymedia.com/devnews/frfld1205.aspx

http://eastlibertypost.com/dads-house-project/

Plus the hundreds of units in Garfield at the top of Black St where it turns into Mossfield.

Plus there were about 50 units re-done by the HP CDC and ELDI about 2 years ago and they are mostly subsidized rentals.

Here's one more article:

http://www.popcitymedia.com/devnews/highlandpark.aspx

They say first of 200 homes. So far, after 4 years, they are at about 20 finished and sold houses in Highland Park / East Lib. At this rate, they'll be done with all of them in 2050.

Also - bike-pgh is a great non-profit, whether you like or dislike other non-profits.

Thanks for your comments, Justin. I agree about pricing. My wife and I talked about the new construction about Euclid awhile back, but we simply couldn't afford it, and we're pretty solidly middle class.

I also noticed the other day that most of the new units on Euclid are still for sale.

The Dads House project sounds totally awesome, and is very similar to the model used by the Lincoln-Lemington group with the single mothers' housing (Dorothy Day Apartments). I hope it succeeds.

bump.

Page 328 of the Mayor's 2012 Capital Budget has us borrowing $100k for the design and implementation of cycling infrastructure improvements.

I like it because it's funding something i like, but i dislike the decision to borrow money to fund the project. No grants? No trust fund? Levi's cant paint 505 relaxed fit sharrows on Liberty? Pitt/CMU streakers slovenly painting ciclovias in the east end?

$80 million is the baseline maintenance funding for adequately paved roads within the city, or it is the sum total of two municipal bond deals in 2012 and 2013 to have a capital budget.

(maybe they are borrowing it in anticipation of grant money that has been promised but not awarded yet?)

Note: At some point the state legislature forbid the City of Pittsburgh to raise parking rates unles they privatized all the city parking lots. I'm not sure if the tax rate reduction was inspired in a similar qway.

Basically, the 'burbites want to have jobs in the city, use the univeristies, libraries, museums, theatres, and hospital, come to the city when they want to commit crimes, live in half-way houses in teh city if they get out of jail, rehad, or a mental institution.

And never pay any taxes to the city.

That is the reason for suburbs in the first place. Instead of paying taxes, they pay oil companies.

It is unlikely to undergo any dramatic changes in the near future. The 'burbites believe the city is corrput (and it might be I don't know.) Of course, the suburb system is as corrupt as anything short of

Tony Soprano, but that is a differnt matter.

I don't think the state legislature would allow pittsburgh to become totally broke. I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

I'm even more confident they will never allow a prosperous city supported by fair taxes.

Yes Mick! Repel the invaders! Send them back to their home municipalities!

People should only live/work/worship/play and be entertained within the bounds of the municipality to whom they pay property taxes. The Commonwealth should institute an ID system with border security officers at municipal boundaries!

We must stop this pillaging of the City resources by the outsiders! All they do is come into the City to suck our education, our culture, our health care. The interlopers are crazy ex-convicts perpetrating crimes on our innocent, unsuspecting citizenry!

@Mick I don't think the state legislature would allow pittsburgh to become totally broke.

The City of Harrisburg went bankrupt a month or so ago. I haven't been following it that closely, but there's your precedent.

@almklm you should have at least some empathy considering the hords of people descending on Aspinwall for a good time...

Yes Mick! Repel the invaders! Send them back to their home municipalities!

To be fair, there is precedent for congestion pricing in Europe. Pittsburgh's urban core isn't as strong as cities that have implemented it however.

Yeah, that might be a dangerous game. Plenty of companies would be willing to listen to suburban developers attempts to woo them to new construction in the 'burbs if it got costly for their employees to work in the city.

And, hey, Ryan, aren't you one of those suburbanites?

why not put a local toll in on the highways and major roads. Pay city income tax, get a little transponder that lets you use it free. Don't, and you have to pay to travel. In canada they've got a system that just tracks license plates and sells the registered owner a bill at the end of every month (use it once or 400 times, just one bill). Probably too big a budget for the city roads.

Or London... you need a little sticker to bring your car in to town. Locals could get one when they pay/file income tax, non-residents get one when they pay their "I wanna use your roads" fee. Drive in to town without one and get caught, pay a fine (could be the price of one, then you get your sticker and you're good for a year).

There's all kinds of ways they could limit congestion and pick up some revenue. There'd have to be political will power to do it, though.

I am a suburbanite. Edgewood. I am also affected by suburban folks who use Regent Square and Maple Ave as a highway on-ramp or a shortcut home.

BTW, Mick, ever heard of the Regional Asset District?

@almklm - they live "outside the city" to have the advantages of living here, but not the taxes. I certainly dont' suggest that they be kept out - I just think the motivations for the existence of suburbs is suspect.

Suburbs = welfare for the prosperous.

@ALMKLM BTW, Mick, ever heard of the Regional Asset District?

You mean the one that represents 15 million people in western PA and has a budget of $81 million - or to put it more clearly $5.40 a person per a year?

OH THANK YOU SIR! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

Welfare for the rich, potholes for the poor.

Mick, that presumes that there are no advantages (like better schools) to living outside the city, but near enough to enjoy it's amenities (often including employment).

And about the Regional Asset District from the Google machine: "The mission of RAD is to support and finance regional assets in the areas of libraries, parks and recreation, cultural, sports and civic facilities and programs. The District receives one-half of the proceeds from the 1% Allegheny County Sales and Use Tax and the other half is paid directly to the County and municipal governments by the State Treasurer.

Since 1995, the 1% County Sales tax paid by residents of and visitors to Allegheny County has resulted in a cumulative $2.3 billion investment in the region (through 2011)."

So you see, we're not all evil freeloaders.

The advantage of better school is certainly a result of the tax structure: Lower taxes and higher per student budgets.

The school are the aspect of this that most angers me. The rest is vaguely irritating, but if there is a hell, there are people going therr over the suburb-based education system that shortchanges the kids of the poor.

Since 1995, the 1% County Sales tax paid by residents of and visitors to Allegheny County has resulted in a cumulative $2.3 billion investment in the region (through 2011)."

In a region with 15 million people (from the same site). That comes out to be almost 80 cents per person per month. Are you trying to impress me?

And how is this 6 bits a month divied out? How much goes to Mt Lebanon and Upper St Clair?

Why is it you say the suburbs aren't evil freeloaders?

@ Mick - see for yourself:

http://www.radworkshere.org/interior.php?pageID=53

I forget where I heard it, but the simple proposal to divide where your taxes go between your municipality of residence and your municipality of labor. Even if it were a small graduated fee as opposed to say a 50/50 split of taxes, I think it would go a long way towards resolving inequities between cities and suburbs.

No more is this apparent than in the case of Snowmaggedon 2010. The City of Pittsburgh was trying to manage the infrastructure of a city that was originally built for three times its current population. I often heard that many suburban municipalities had their roads completely cleared a day or two after the event, but nary did I see anyone proposing using their idling resources to help out the apparently stricken city...

(I will admit that Lukey wasn't much help, but that was only a factor in the situation, not the root cause)

Mick, you make a barely coherent, ridiculous argument. Your self-described "rant" is borderline hysterical, and completely irrational.

Maybe i'm just not equipped (ie: smart enough) to follow your logic, but I fail to see the connection between where people choose to live (and pay taxes) and the plight of their neighboring municipalities. Further, to level the charge that the residents of those municipalities are somehow evil, corrupt (or I think you suggested recovering addicts, mentally insane or just plain criminal) is absurd.

Perhaps I just wandered into what you intended as a satirical jab. If so, the egg is on my face. And if that's the case, it makes a lot more sense to me than the notion that you are actually serious.

@ALMKLM

Look the regional asset fund is a fine thing. It probably has more money flowing into the city than out of it.

The transfer of wealth represents what? Maybe a quarter per month from every suburbanite to the city? Less? More? Hard to tell.

That's fleas, dude. Tiny little parasitic bugs.

And in return we get crap like not being able to raise parking rates without privatizing the parking companies?

How much wealth transfer from the suburbs to the city do yo think THAT revenue could be? It's hard for me to estimate, but I'm guessing it would be many, many times our net gain from the regional asset fund.

@ALMKLM

Thisa is what you feel.

I don't feel a whole lot differnt about what you write.

There is a system that causes a few of the people who use the city to pay a silly small amount ($.80 per month, on average) that the city gets some part of and you are acting like it's some big thing?

It's not much. It is neither honest, nor particularly rational to pretend otherwise.

we're all in this together.

I guess I'm just not sure what the basis of your displeasure is, Mick. I don't expect people who visit our town to pay at the door for the privilege.

@ALMKLM, I lived in Shadyside on Spahr street.

I'm not sure how many half way houses, filled with people from all over the region there were within 4 blocks of my house, but I know the number was more than a half dozen. My girlfriend, who lived in Fox Chapel, did not have a halfway house with two miles of where she lived.

There were Fox Chapelites in the halfway houses in my neighborhood.

I guessing there was never -not even once- a person from my nighborhood sent to a halfway house in Fox Chapel.

Just a guess.

That is just one (admittedly very tiny) way the suburbs have the advantage over the city. They send their drug addicts and mentally ill people to my neighborhood. Along with a quarter or two from this regional asset fund.

Mick, that sounds like a very good reason not to live on Spahr Street in Shadyside.

And to your example, so what? What does that have to do with the City of Pittsburgh's financial problems?

You are a smart guy, Mick, but this is a bizarre post. You say: "They send their drug addicts and mentally ill people to my neighborhood..." Enlighten me, Mick. How does that work. Do the Fox Chapel police go door to door and round up all of the dope fiends and crazies and drive them over to Spahr Street? C'mon, that's silly.

@ALMKLM I don't expect peopel who visit my neighborhood to pay to visit eitehr.

I would like to see them pay a fair amount to city if they are going to drive to the city and park here, though. If they make a million or two each year working in one of our "non-profits," I would like to see them pay more than a pittance of their salary to help with the infrastructure they use when they drive their Chevy Suburban on our roads every day.

When you say "our town" do you mean Pittsburgh? A lot of people call Pittsburgh "our town" when they pay the artificially low taxes of a prosperous bedroom community, and that doesn't seem fair to me.

When the Steeler win a super bowl, they get all testy at people who point out theat they are not Pittsurghers.

When the time come to pay for Pittsburgh. All of a sudden Pittsburgh isn't "our town" any more. Now, "our town" is Baldwin, Edgewood or Bethel Park.

Really interesting Blog Post on the subject.

http://pittsburghfuture.blogspot.com/2008/08/our-regions-future-depends-on-our-small.html

ALMKLM What does that have to do with the City of Pittsburgh's financial problems?

If I'm not entirely mistaken, most of those half-way houses are non-profits. That is, they use city services as much as (perhaps more than) other people, but do not pay taxes to the city.

Mick, to clarify, when I said "our town," I was actually referring to the town in which I live, not the City of Pittsburgh. So I suppose I am guilty of rooting for "your" sports teams. I often text during games with my buddy who lives in LA about how the game is going. He roots for "your" team, too. I guess we both owe Lukie some sheckles?

@ Mick, re: halfway houses. Most halfway houses are actually for-profit businesses, with client care paid for by insurance companies. But what does their location in one municipality, have to do with another municipality?

C'mon, Mick. You're a smart guy - smarter than this particular thread demonstrates. Read that blog I linked. There are some rational and reasoned positions there.

@ALMKLM

You, that blog is good, as far as it goes.

And of course, the City doesn’t offer just jobs; it is also the region’s primary source for advanced health care, higher education, culture, entertainment, and sports, which are major attractions for talented workers, regardless of where in the region they live.

The challenge for the City is providing the public services needed to support these jobs and regional attractions, but with a tax base that depends primarily on a shrinking base of residents. Raising tax rates on either businesses or residents won’t work, because it’s too easy for either group to move across the City line to escape them.

What the blog doesn't mention is taht other alternative, like, say, a decent wage tax or raising parking rates in city owned garqages, are precluded by a legislature that is dominated by subarn and ex-arban districts.

It also point outs Aren’t the City’s high tax rates a major deterrent to living in the City? Yes, but high gasoline prices are an equally high deterrent to living in the suburbs. What most commuters save in taxes by living in the suburbs is now more than offset by the cost of gasoline and depreciation on their car.

It fails to mention something here that I will make explicit: burning gasoline and attendent oil companies? Are about as evil as you find around here.

I have ranted here before about various mayors giving massive, unproductive tax breaks to try to get retail companies downtown - when the same tax breaks probably could have done great things for say, increasing downtown residences.

One of those mayors reputedly made a fortune in Cranberry Township real estate. I will leave it to the reader to guess whether I think that is evil or not.

ALMKLM You're a smart guy - smarter than this particular thread demonstrates

If find it a little creepy to get patronized like this.

One might think, you are making overwhelming arguments here. I don't see it.

I see you going on about things like the Regional asset district - trivial to me.

I see you minimizing the fact that the mentally ill and drug addicts from the suburbs get housed here - and when I lived on Spahr, at least, I did not find it trivial.

You might think I'm not making valid arguments? I guess you can think that, but I don't believe it.

I think the people that use the city services should help play for them more than they are now. Much more than they are now.

Whether consumers of City services should pay their way or not is worthy of debate.

Whether residents of suburbs, or the suburban municipalities themselves are evil is simply silly.

And your fixation on halfway houses full to the brim with recovering addicts from such tony suburban locales as Fox Chapel undercuts your credibility.

I think the premise that the city is for the poor and the suburbs are for the prosperous is completely false. In the mid 90's when my new wife and I were looking for a place to live, we scoured the city for a house we could afford in a neighborhood we would live in. There are vast quantities of crap substandard cheap housing, and scads of 300k plus homes for the well to do. There is or was, no middle class housing in the city, and no real attempt to establish any. When you're earning 35k a year, you can't get a mortgage in any decent neighborhood, you are forced to commute and pay for gas as a defacto monthly payment.

The average middle class working asshole has substantially less ability to structure most aspects of their life than your ideology accounts for, Mick. Most people have to work where they can find it and live where they can afford it.

I don't really understand Mick's point about halfway houses either but I generally agree with the rest of what he said. The suburbs benefit from the presence of the city yet don't really pay any taxes to the city. There are other layers to the issue that are probably more controversial, but that's the basic problem - and I don't claim to know what the solution is.

The RAD is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't cover any operating expenses for the city - it mostly pays for libraries, parks, stadiums, etc.

Basically it's this:

The benefits of the city are used by the whole region.

There is a heavy tax burden imposed by those benefits.

One can avoid paying much of that tax burden by contributing instead to oil consumption and urban sprawl.

I consider both oil consumption and sprawl to be bad things. I dont' think paying to the oil compnies is a good substute for paying reasonable taxes.

I put a moral valuation on that.

I feel that effort by the governments at different levels (Federal, state, local) to aid in that tax avoidance repugnant.

Now, I understand that if you have kids, you have a personal moral compunction to do right by your kids. That puts a high priority on of getting them better schooling, safer neighborhoods, possibly cleaner air, less exposure to drug addicts and the mentally ill, and a variety of other things.

There is, in my mind at least, a real pressing duty to the best for your kids in this respect.

I've been reading history recently about German physicists in WWII. Most of them live through the calamities of the end of WWI and the poverty of the 1920's and early 30's, as well as the chaos at the end of WWII.

One of them said once that "stealing is wrong. Unless, of course, you need to for your children."

But note: He did not say that if you do it for your kids it wasn't theft. He just said it wasn't wrong.

I don't see what the suburbanites as having a honest share of the tax burden.

I can't blame them too much for that - they are doing the best they can for themselves and their families.

I can expect them to be truthful about it, though. I get angered by claims that there is no imbalance.

I've heard people justify this imbalance by the claim that the city government is corrupt and the suburbanites should not have to support that. I can't realistically claim there isn't more corruption in the city, but I dont' know either way. There is corruption in the 'burbs, for sure. (Google Dormont+ police for a truly bizarre tale, for example).

As far as halfway houses? I have mentally ill, drug addicted criminals residents of Fox Chapel living in halfway houses (some are non-profit/tax free) in my neighborhood. I'm confident that Fox Chapel has never - not even once - had a mentally ill, drug addicted, criminal from teh city of Pittsburgh living in a non-profit institution in their community. That might not be a big thing, but it doesn't strike me as fair and balanced.

can anyone explain to me the limits on Pittsburgh to annex land? Other cities seem to do it all the time. Now, I know that our population isn't exactly expanding, but there is industry and density in the "suburb" boroughs surrounding the city and logically it seems they should be part of the city. I do understand the reluctance of these municipalities to join the city- it seems like a losing situation and I wonder how to make it more attractive. Also, given the small boundaries of the city, the argument that these suburbanites are out there using all this gas to drive from their new homes to jobs in the city is not the true picture. Really, commuting from Millvale or Edgewood into the city proper isn't part of some evil suburban lifestyle that's being beaten up here.

There has been a movement afoot for several years to combine the city and county governments. I think the plan was always a bit short of real details, but people are talking about it. One large obstacle has been the city's financial woes.

I don't where I stand in this discussion quite yet--I mean, I've lived in the city most of my life, so there's that--but while I agree that, say, Ryan isn't an evil, gas-guzzling suburbanite, the issues raised in the thread regarding using city resources might still be valid. On the other hand, some of the resources (libraries, museums, etc) aren't exclusively funded by the city, so some of their tax dollars _do_ pay for the services.

Oh, and by the way, there is a rehab center in Fox Chapel.

@Mick - you say: "One can avoid paying much of that tax burden by contributing instead to oil consumption and urban sprawl."

When I bought my house, I never factored in "oil consumption and urban sprawl." In fact, my town actually shares a boundary with the City, so we're pretty close. And as far as urban sprawl goes, my town was established and built in 1892.

So I think another distinction needs to be made, because clearly every municipality that is outside of the City of Pittsburgh does not match your definition of "Evil Suburb."

And, you seem intent on viewing this all through the lens of individuals, that individual "suburbanites" are at fault. That "suburbanites" are to blame for wanting to live in nicer places with better schools, and that somehow makes them bad people because of the increased oil consumption that accompanies that decision.

Whatever taxes are levied against a property are done so by the municipal government. If a town decides they want to provide a certain level of service, they levy taxes to pay for it. They adjust that tax rate from time to time to cover their costs. School Boards and School Districts similarly determine what level of education they want to provide and adjust their school tax rates to cover that cost. The individual "suburbanite" simply performs their own cost/benefit analysis and decides if it is good value (among other foctors, of course, such as proximity to halfway houses).

You seem to imply that as a group, "suburbanites" are giving the City of Pittsburgh the big old F-U. You seem to almost be taking it personally.

And I remain absolutely fascinated by your fixation with halfway houses, and your assertion that they are overflowing with cray, drug addicted criminals from Fox Chapel. Again, what does that have to do with any of this? Those businesses, whether they are for-profit or not, can choose to locate wherever they want! What does their presence in Shadyside as opposed to Fox Chapel have to do with anything?

And since when are municipalities expected or required to be "fair and balanced?"

(@brian - the Old Freeport Road location is actually O'Hara Township. Different municipality. I'm pretty sure there are NO BUSINESSES in Fox Chapel at all, because of how they wrote their zoning ordinances.)

In general, I'd imagine that choosing a location for a halfway house rests on three pillars. 1) Cost of property and upkeep, 2) Need, as defined by density of population in need of help, and 3) Proximity to amenities such as public transit, grocery stores, hospitals, and employment. Sounds remarkably urban to me.

Some things cluster in urban environments simply because they make more sense there, not as a result of a deliberate exurban offloading of responsibility.

@Tabby - this might help:

http://www.lgc.state.pa.us/deskbook06/Basics05_Municipalities_How_They_Change.pdf

And this (from Wiki)

Text of Section 8:

Consolidation, Merger or Boundary Change

Uniform Legislation. -- The General Assembly shall, within two years following the adoption of this article, enact uniform legislation establishing the procedure for consolidation, merger or change of the boundaries of municipalities. Initiative. -- The electors of any municipality shall have the right, by initiative and referendum, to consolidate, merge and change boundaries by a majority vote of those voting thereon in each municipality, without the approval of any governing body. Study. -- The General Assembly shall designate an agency of the Commonwealth to study consolidation, merger and boundary changes, advise municipalities on all problems which might be connected therewith, and initiate local referendum. Legislative Power. -- Nothing herein shall prohibit or prevent the General Assembly from providing additional methods for consolidation, merger or change of boundaries.

@redan Some things cluster in urban environments simply because they make more sense there, not as a result of a deliberate exurban offloading of responsibility.

I certainly would not claim that ALL exurban offloading of responsibilty is deliberate. Far from it.

One of the advantages is of the suburbs is that you can live there and not think about the social structure involved.

@ALMKLM I remain absolutely fascinated by your fixation with halfway houses, and your assertion that they are overflowing with cray, drug addicted criminals from Fox Chapel.

The halfway houses are overflowing. SOME of the occupants are from Fox Chapel. I have used this as just one example of the imbalances that I am, indeed, angry about.

I'm mentioned it in passing, then responded to your comments. If there is fixation, it's yours.

I wouldn't make a silly statement like the Fox Chapel police go door to door and round up all of the dope fiends and crazies and drive them over to Spahr Street here, but if I were explaining the matter to a 4 year-old, I might put it that way. I imagine a typical 4 year-old would understand why a city resident might find it upsetting.

Add a more realistic due process for your "police pick up", and that statement is accurate.

@ALMKLM You seem to imply that as a group, "suburbanites" are giving the City of Pittsburgh the big old F-U. You seem to almost be taking it personally.

Indeed. I do believe such and I do take it personally.

Hard to follow some of the events having to do with, say, public transit, the pathetic scope of the Regional Asset Disctrict, the urban sprawl stretching into neighboring counties, along with the deterioration of the city that supports the region and not feel that way.

On Edgewood.

In this cntury, I once heard an old-time Edgewood resident about my age talk (with pride) about how a black person could not travel through Edgewood when he was young. I have been assured by Bicycle Joe that he often gets stopped traveling travelling Edgewood and that he feels that situation still exists. (I don't beleive Joe would mind me citing him here on this issue.)

The issue discussed here with Edgewood and the gate to the shopping center might have a bit to do with race. Difficult to say how much, but I believe there is resistance to letting black people thourgh that gate.

I dont' think there would be much open talk about that. As I said, you don't have to think about the social structure to live a in a suburb. Edgewood is a good example of that.

I won't somehow exclude Edgewood from my negative statements about suburbs just because there are a lot of nice people that live there. Same as most suburbs.

I would never live in Edgewood and have tried discouraging others from moving there. In far stronger terms than I am using here. One former friend let me know he considered the racial policies of the Edgewood police an advantage. He lives there now.(shrug)

Most of the residents don't think about it. That is part of the problem.

The excellent personal reasons that a person might have for moving to the suburbs aren't not really somehow magically divorced from the problems I'm talking about.

"One of the advantages is of the suburbs is that you can live there and not think about the social structure involved."

Following along, but I'm not at all clear on that point.

"One of the advantages is of the suburbs is that you can live there and not think about the social structure involved."

Arguably, the same statement could be made of any living arrangement. Obliviousness to the impact of one's life choices on others is a fairly general condition, not specific to the 'burbs.

Obliviousness to the impact of one's life choices on others is a fairly general condition, not specific to the 'burbs

+∞

Racist cops are also not unique to the suburbs.

re: Police and halfway houses: Our town has a jail. The County Jail and Courts are located in downtown Pittsburgh. There are hospitals all over. Our local magistrate is in Sharpsburg (different municipality). Other than than that, our Police don't take people anywhere. Certainly not "halfway houses." Criminals (or the mentally ill) would be taken to one of those locations.

I am sorry that you take all of this personally. You say: "The excellent personal reasons that a person might have for moving to the suburbs aren't not really somehow magically divorced from the problems I'm talking about." And yet you seem to want to hold all "suburbanites" accountable for the City of Pittsburgh's shortcomings, as if increased tax revenue would somehow "magically" make it all better.

It is not a fair world, Mick. Justice is not universal. What is right is seldom what actually happens. I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying that is the way it is.

You are a very principled person, and I respect that. But holding everyone who lives outside of the City accountable for what happens within it is misguided.

And I'll point out that the whole "suburbs have better schools" is pretty much an idea clung to by parents in the suburbs.

I went to an inner city school, and at that inner city school I managed to get 5 AP courses, college credit for foreign language courses, and take part in more band, orchestra, and other musical extras than I've ever heard of taking place in any suburban school. I didn't get shot, get pregnant, or get rejected by colleges for attending a city school. I got recruited for attending my school. (Ok, so I did know people who got shot or pregnant, but it really was easy to avoid because I'm not that socially swift and I managed it).

Whereas my current suburban school district... they don't call it "St. Bart's School District" for nothing. In the 70s it was one of the best school districts in the nation. Now it's regularly in the bottom three in the state, measured by any means.

Maybe I've managed to live in two outliers. But I'm also a really firm believer that schools are what you make of it. I've seen ill-prepared idiots come from "top notch schools" and really sharp people come from "failing" schools. But the only people I've heard argue that the suburbs have some kind of mystical scholastic superiority are suburban parents.

The main benefit to living in the suburbs, near as I can tell, is that your housing dollar looks better and you are surrounded by suburbanites (personally both drive me nuts, but others seem to like it that way). My suburb (and many other 1st generation suburbs) has shown that these values alone will not sustain a community in a prosperous and healthy way.

The "Suburbs" are not some homogenous thing. There are 130 distinct municipalities in Allegheny County alone. If Mick is defining "suburbs" as any community around Pittsburgh that is not Pittsburgh, then there are at least 129 communities that fit the description.

So, aside from not being Pittsburgh, but being within Allegheny County, most have nothing in common. McCandless v. McKeesport. Neville v. O'Hara. Reserve v. Richland.

Some have streets, sidewalks and shopping. Others cul-de-sacs, asphalt shoulders and strip malls. Some have been around for more than a hundred years, others less than thirty.

my high school situation was similar, ejwme. except I took dance class and a few less AP courses.

uhm, Mick I didn't bring up Edgewood to be exempt "because there are a lot of nice people that live there". I don't personally know any Edgewood residents, but my point was Edgewood and other very close in boroughs are urban in design and so should not be painted with the same brush as a suburb requiring the long highway commute into the city. Basically what ALMKLM just said about all the municipalities not being homogeneous.

ETA: that pdf was interesting, ALMKLM. I still wonder how that might differ in other cities because it seems that other cities have been able to grow their boundaries with less difficulty.

Well let's get those boundaries changed, because a simple change of boundaries will instantaneously make 10's of thousands of people less evil. Win!

Well let's get those boundaries changed, because a simple change of boundaries will instantaneously make 10's of thousands of people less evil. Win!

Well, I guess if money is the root of evil, and we make them poorer by including them in city taxation, they would be automagically less evil. Seems legit...

If Pittsburgh and Allegheny County merge I'm moving to Butler!

If Pittsburgh and Allegheny County merge clearly Butler is going to benefit. They will need to start paying some sort of tribute to the new city/county entity.

@ Tabby, trust me, for all I said about Edgewood, there are a lot of perfectly decent people living there.

Edgewood folks post here and I don't mean to insult them. I hope to raise awareness, but I think I might have pushed things a little hard for that. (shrug)

If you read this thread, I think you'll find that my positions, while admittedly radical, are neither as extreme nor as irrational as some people here are presenting.

The idea that the populations who use city services should pay for them is difficult one to deal with.

The majority of people in the country live in suburbs now. The majority of people Allegheny County live outside the city, the majority that are taxed for the regional asset fund live outside Allegheny County.

I dont' see easy solutions.

As will Wash Pa, Greensburg, even Weirton. I mean, once you're out there, those suburbanites won't bat a eye at driving a few more minutes.

What it boils down to is, the footprint of greater Pgh is so small, the traffic and parking problems so miniscule compared to truly large cities that people here just bitch and moan but put up with it. NY, LA, CHi, people do 2 and 3 hour commutes to get to affordable housing.

Mick, I don't know of any instances where the Edgewood police racially profiled, but IMO the gate issue is racial. They don't want "poor" people walking through their quiet area.

edmonds59, it's not as if there is an overflowing pool of housing stock within the Pittsburgh city limits either. What's there is old and in need of work or renovated and too expensive.

I don't want to be a dick, this is sincere, but Mick, IIRC don't you work at Mercy? Any internal conflicts about working at an entity that pays no city taxes, since that seems to be a key issue?

According to the Pittsburgh Business Times last summer, of the seven largest employers in the City of Pittsburgh, only two were tax payers (Giant Eagle and Wal Mart):

1. UPMC

2. US Govt

3. State of PA

4. Pitt

5. WPAHS

6. Giant Eagle

7. Wal Mart

Those top 5 represent about 91,250 jobs.

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2010/06/14/daily45.html

@ALMKLM two were tax payers

I think we can agree that is an issue for the city.

I believe that Pitt and UPMC have some kind of agreement where they donate a certain amount to the city for services.

OTOH, it is a voluntary agreement. Even if done in perfectly good faith "How much do you think you should pay the city?" is probably going to net less cash than a tax assessment typically would.

It also seems to me that some "non-profits" measure their success by growth and acquistion. No "profit" at all! But now they own a few billion dollars worth of real estate that some else owned before.

UPMC relocated it's cooperate offices to the top floors of the Steel Building last year. They were asked why they selected this location and replied "because the Vatican was not available"

@edmunds Mick, IIRC don't you work at Mercy?

I work for Pitt, with an office at Mercy.

Yeah, there is a bit of conflict there. I would not make a point of telling my employer, or even my rather liberal boss, how I might vote on taxing tuition.

I won't go into the problems with college services, tuition levels, and finance - in part because I have more of a vague feeling that there are some things that are not right than any clear ideas.

I will say this,because I have seen no other commentators say it - on either side. When the governor proposed massive cuts in education funding and increases in tuition, I think he should have proposed some modest funding towards state-school and state-related school tuition for, say, the graduates in the top 1% of their class from any PA high school. That is a bit off-topic though.

But on the city-suburb thing? The two big nonprofits are mostly located in the city. The service they give tends to be more far-reaching than that. The municipal services they use strike me as overly burdening the city.

@Greasefoot They were asked why they selected this location and replied "because the Vatican was not available"

*scratches head*

Don't speak so fast.

UPMC has a transplant center in Sicily. They took over Children's Hospital.

These things will put UPMC in an excellent negotiating position.

The rent for the top floors of the steel building was so expensive the previous tenant, H.J. Heinz (a fortune 500 company) moved out. Mainly because it's stock holders discovered the cost per square foot and protested the excess.

The "non-profit" UPMC did not bat an eye at the cost and could not wait to take over the space.

FWIW, the only number I could find for the construction cost of the Parkway North was $550M in 1985-1989 dollars, which represents over $1B in 2011 dollars.

I'd have to think the city would be in a lot better shape with an extra billion dollars. Instead we enable people to commute in from Cranberry and pay their taxes to Butler Co.

UPMC offices were previously in Chatam center across from the arena. The per sq.ft. rate at US tower (after negotiations) is actually lower than what they were paying at Chatham and allowed them to combine and expand some of their office staff. That and it allowed them to put up massive adams-apple stroking letters atop the tallest building in town.

My own experience with moving back to Pittsburgh after time living elsewhere was to balance the city vs. suburb house buying issue taking total taxation into account. The burbs usually have low wage tax & high property tax; the city high wage tax & low property tax. So for someone making above a modest wage it usually makes more sense to live outside the city. But for a wealthy retired person living in the city makes great sense – and I think the recent downtown housing development reflects this.

And like ejwme, I went to city schools and got a great education (advanced classes, etc.) even though I had classmates who didn’t – just like my new suburban school system.

@Salty - that's kind of a false option. I-279 wasn't built with City dollars. That was mostly federal money, and it's not as though the feds offer cities the option to choose.

@ALMKLM - you are correct, I-279 was a Penndot project and was 90 or 95% federal money. Unfortunately, the feds only provide this percentage of funding for building highways...

@Marko - I did not have the opportunity to see UPMC's previous offices but I had a rare chance to tour the new space before they moved in during renovations. No expense was spared in the new executive offices. When UPMC was renovating the office space back in 2008 they actually laid off 500 people.

Edit. the only reason I remember this is because someone I know was displaced

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08298/922474-28.stm

It's not really a false option - that money comes from somewhere and if it's being spent on interstates it's not being spent elsewhere. Ostensibly the money comes from the gas tax, so at least in theory it came out of the pockets of people who drive on that road (that's not really true, at least recently, but that's another whole topic).

My point was exactly that public policy at all levels helps enable the suburbs to exist, but that certainly doesn't mean there's no other choice. Even if we accept that the money has to be spent on roads, my back of the envelope calculation is that a billion dollars would be enough to pave every street in the city 4 times over, which equates to 40 years of road maintenance.

I strongly dislike UPMC for many of the reasons stated above. With that said, I work for the other hospital system, and believe me, there's nothing luxurious about anything I have seen in our hospitals or offices. Some patient floors were redone, but nothing is over the top. Hoping that some of that highmark money will allow the hospital to do something other than painting over textured wallpaper to make things look better.

Anyway, I was on my way to my parents' house the other week and wanted to vomit when I went through cranberry. It is everything I hate about everything. Not only do people drive everywhere they go, but parking lots are full of luxury SUVs. It seems that a good number of people who live in cranberry can afford not only these vehicles but huge houses. I say tax them heavily. If I made that much money, I think it would be my obligation to other people to pay higher taxes. Do I really need all of that money to live and buy things I don't need? Might as well put it to use for something positive.

That's how people want to live. People are, for the most part, assholes. If someone can come up with some means of convincing people not to be selfish, ignorant assholes, please let me know, because I've been trying to figure it out for a long time, and I'm pretty much out of ideas.

I've noted, too, that plenty of people who live in the city drive big SUVs everywhere they go.

Edmonds is right--people are people. Where they live, or how they get around, are not the only indicators of character.

It seems that a good number of people who live in cranberry can afford not only these vehicles but huge houses.

I suspect that, in point of fact, many of those people who have both can afford neither. See also "housing bubble" and "personal debt at all-time high."

@greasefoot - I’m not saying that UPMC doesn’t waste money, they do. I’m also not arguing that they are sometimes evil. Sometimes they are absolutely both – see Braddock hospital where they renovated extensively then closed the building down the following year. BTW, when Gateway (another non-profit local health insurer) was looking for office space at about the same time, one of their criteria was the new site had to have good public transportation so their employees could get there cheaply. They ended up leasing some of the space that UPMC left behind at Chatham Center –at a lower price.

Also, I think the “non-profit” municipal tax issues are a statewide issue and need to be addressed as such. Maybe there could be a statewide tax (gas extraction, casino, landfill tipping, sales tax, etc.) that could then be distributed to the communities based on non-profit assessed property within the municipality. That way everyone “pays” for the privilege of having hospitals, museums, etc. Of course I also think we need to look at the definition of what is a non-profit – a company sitting on Billions of dollars in a power struggle with another non-profit to provide essentially the same service strikes me as a Profit making entity.

Having small municipalities, and using municipal-level taxes to pay for local services (esp. schools), is a highly regressive tax system. Wealthy areas will pay a lower tax rate and/or have greater funding, and poorer areas will be burdened with the highest tax rates. (See Wilkinsburg.)

I’m not anti UPMC, in fact I believe the region is very lucky to have such a network. A decade or so ago when the Catholic Church decided to get out of the hospital business Pgh was fortunate the University of Pgh took over most of the hospitals. In the City of Philadelphia they were not so lucky, and most of the Catholic hospitals went bankrupt and were closed.

They make some voluntary contribution to the City and are major contributors to the Pgh Promise foundation. Although I do believe their non-profit status cheats the City of Pgh out of a lot of tax revenue. One might argue it’s the tax exempt status that makes them so successful.

They jack up their prices and charge a higher reimbursement rate. Or try to.

@reddan. (on Cranberry McMansions and SUVS) I suspect that, in point of fact, many of those people who have both can afford neither. See also "housing bubble" and "personal debt at all-time high."

It's OK, though!!!

When gas prices go down, they will be sitting SO pretty!!!!!!

[edited to add superflous exclamation points!]

@salty My point was exactly that public policy at all levels helps enable the suburbs to exist, but that certainly doesn't mean there's no other choice.

+1

(As though anyone here might doubt where I stand on this kind of thing.

now you understand why I have been so down about my employment location.

I work in a building with about 3000 other people. Down the hill from us (which now has a sidewalk to get to it, yay!) is a little complex with a Moe's and sandwich shop and gyro shop, a massage place, a tanning place, I think a nail salon too, little service shops.

The people that work in my building make an average of three to four times what the people who work in that little complex make. I'm at the bottom end of that, but I can't afford even the cheapest house that was for sale in Cranberry this past year (there's a townhouse or two where it's a maybe). What I don't understand is, where do the people working in that little complex live? No WAY they can afford decent housing within 10 miles. Even the apartments are exorbitant.

So this entire community is serviced by people who can't live here. It's like some bizarre modern feudal system where the serfs aren't even allowed to live in the keep.

I've brought up some of these ideas with my coworkers, and they either agree and live elsewhere, or give me the deer in the headlights look - they're not assholes, they just don't think about it.

Passive decisions are the worst - the outcomes are typically felt by everybody else before the decider notices what's happened.

Here's a problem I'm having with a lot of this: Much of the discussion here faults individual choices for a collective circumstance. Many here want to hold the individuals that live in these communities responsible for their, or their municipalities problems.

Consensus seems to be that the existing system of varied municipalities with different tax structures and demographic make-ups, and different business/residential mixes, all connected by highways traveled upon by people in vehicles with internal combustion engines is BAD.

Fine. But to demonize the people who happen to live there, either by conscious choice, or because that's where they grew up, or to be closer to work, or because its perceived to be a better school, or because its perceived to be safer... To demonize these people and hold them accountable for a system (as described above) that has been growing for a few generations... that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'm not about to apologize for not living in the City. And I can't understand the notion that living in the City imbues the City Resident some moral high ground because the use their car less or not at all.

I made a choice that was good for me. And that choice has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anybody who lives in the City. Just as your choice to live in the City has nothing to do with me.

So can someone coherently explain to me why I and anyone else NOT living in the City should be demonized or held accountable for the shortcomings of the current "system?"

And ejwme, I'm sorry, but "Passive decisions are the worst - the outcomes are typically felt by everybody else before the decider notices what's happened..." Please tell me how my decision to live outside the City is "felt" by anybody else, and why should I care?

@ALMKLM Please tell me how my decision to live outside the City is "felt" by anybody else, and why should I care?

As long as you never use the city's facilities or non-profits (Like, say, the bike-pgh forum), and don't add extra pollution by driving a greater distance, your living out side the city and it's tax base wouldn't be anyone's else's concern at all.

Of course, if the city goes so broke it starts resembling Detroit, living as close to it as you do might be un-nerving even if you don't use the facilities or non-profits.

But if he is a member of BikePGH, isn't it also _his_ service?

Also, what "facilities" are unique to the city, driven entirely by their own tax revenue? I'm not trying to pick a fight--I'm just curious.

ALMKLM, I will apologize that you feel demonized by any number of persons on this board. What I take from the argument is that people that work in the city, especially, but live outside it, are receiving city services for which they do not contribute to equitably. I do not agree with the fact that those who simply choose to live outside the city are demons.

Many decisions we make in our lives have effects on other people. For example, my choice to live in East Liberty and renovate a house could potentially be felt by neighbors by a means commonly known as gentrification. And it is not too hard to extrapolate that ones choice to live anywhere can have consequences (big or small, bad or good) for those around them.

We're in this together.

the problem with the suburbs is the same problem with upmc. and with u.s. auto manufacturers, and banks, politics, and just about every other institutional problem that is the fault of nobody in particular.

we allow some competitive advantage to some for some reason, then, before we realize how bad its gotten, its too big to sustain itself, too awful for everyone to agree that "this is how it should be", and too powerful to let us dial it back.

i imagine, due to the immense political power they can bring to bear, it would be silly to try to revoke or lessen some of upmc's tax exempt status. it's hard to believe they would allow any change to the current definition that would include some of their more questionable practices.

automobiles were the bees' knees in the 40s and 50s. now, i personally think they're sort of a mess. but we built our entire world around them, so...oops?

how can you fault someone for moving to the suburbs? the city's amenities are there for the taking whenever they want them, but they don't have to put up with the crime or taxes. the only rational decision, for people who make their decisions in this way, is to pay less and get the same (or more). but now that everyone lives there, they can control the cities' abilities to charge them for the services the city provides. and the cities will have no recourse to recoup the cost of those services. oops again!

this is (at least in my understanding) what the occupy protests are about. this country's love for the pursuit of a buck is the stuff of legend, and as americans, we still actively embrace it. but some people start winning and start changing the rules, and now the game is stacked against all those who aren't already ahead.

unfortunately for us, the messes always take a lot longer to clean up than they do to make.

In an interconnected society, it seems a bit odd to single out one zone (e.g. city, rural, suburban, exurban, etc.) as being the only one where usage by non-residents occurs.

The township roads over which much of the city's garbage travels, for instance, are not necessarily paid for by income from said waste disposal.

This discussion seems predicated on the idea that the urban environment is self-contained and autonomous, and that there are no costs of city living that have been externalized to the surrounding countryside. That is self-evidently not the case.

Nicely put, HV.

I don't think people are evil for living in the suburbs - I lived in McCandless for 10 years myself, and worked for companies in Cranberry (including that godforsaken place ejwme works at) and Robinson. I'm certainly not making any sacrifices to live in the city now, especially after I managed to land a job here as well. I know from experience (I commuted from the city to the suburbs for 5+ years) that you don't always have that option, and it's not guaranteed I won't be forced back into it at some point.

My problem is more with the policies that make the whole mess possible, and the lengths our society goes to in order to perpetuate it. Like HV said, it's hard to fault someone individually for taking what amounts to a good deal for them personally. But, as I think we're seeing, it's not a healthy or sustainable situation for anyone involved.

@reddan I'm not particularly married to the discussion anymore but I don't see the problem focusing on one part of the issue that seems especially inequitable. The thread was started about city taxes and budgets, after all.

I lived in the City, I lived in the suburbs, and now I live in the City again. For the most part it has been my choice.

To be quit honest it’s ironic to me that some people think the suburbs are a burden on the City services. Most people in the suburbs would say the reverse and the City is a finical burden on the County services

Perhaps more people in the suburbs should recognize and maybe take a stand at counsel meetings regarding the way things are as try to prevent what suburbia has become. Why just continue to let things develop the way they are? Why accept that things just "have to be that way"?

In a perfect world, there would be sidewalks and small community stores that people could walk, bike, and take public transit to in suburban towns. I am sure there are good reasons to move to the suburbs (better schools, etc). As mentioned, it is unfortunate that cities were built around cars. Rarely can and do people outside of the city walk or ride a bike to the store down the road. So people are less active. Then they get unhealthy. Then they get diseases.

I don't know what the solution is. I don't think that people in the suburbs shouldn't be allowed to use city facilities. I think people need to use their heads more and think about why things are they way they are.. With everything.. And not just accept things cause "that's the way it is". I find the point Ej made was great.. People need to stop being so passive.

@stef - again, not all of suburbia is alike. My town, which has sidewalks and community stores and lots of walkers (and bus riders and bicycle-commuters).

And by the way, two of us (who are also regular Team DeCaf riders) ARE on town Council.

the inner ring suburbs are much, MUCH more conducive to car-free living than the surrounding ones. probably because they were built mostly before everyone had cars. all the little town centers along the allegheny are nice and walkable with a central core of local businesses driving the whole thing.surround any one of those towns with miles of farm land and you have all the little canal and railroad towns i grew up in. i just wish more "modern" suburbs and exurbs were designed around the prototypical small town america people seem to think of them as representing.

+1

I wish that too, but anymore it seems suburbs are built and expanded in order to support more development $.

@ stefb Why just continue to let things develop the way they are? Why accept that things just "have to be that way"?

There are reasons to be pessimistic about anything being done. I'm not saying we should accept "that's the way it is." But it's hard for me to see a realistic mechanism for the changes.

We have a lot of democratic way of decision making, but sometimes they get structurally unbalance.

Could you run for office in ALMKLM's neighborhood on the platform that maybe that community should pay more to support the regions mostly urban non-profits and other benfits? And not just his community, of course - anyone's community.

As a far stretch of an analog, imagine being in Alabama in 1855 and telling a room full of hard-working foremen, overseers and small planters that white people were taking more than was fair. Admittedly, that was a FAR more egregious circumstance that we are talking about.

Now, these days, the suburbanites will be sarcastic with you, insult you, give you strawman arguments, then tell you "You're a smart guy." and "You are a very principled person, and I respect that." (uh... thanks.)

In the ante-bellum south they would have just shot you.

Any solution has problems. In Canada, if I'm not mistaken, the federal government determines cities boundaries.

As has been pointed out here, it isn't clear at all where the boundaries SHOULD go out to. ("Dormont"? "Mt Lebonan"? "Upper St Clair"? "Peters Township"? "Morgantown"? Maybe Squirrel Hill should secede from the city becaue they would have a SWEET tax base?)

Wherever the line is drawn there are going to be inequities and absurdities.

Cranberry would not be what it is if the formula "Convenient access to the city/low taxes/high gas bills" had the middle taken out.

Should it be developed like it is and have the taxes of a rural area? Should it be taxed like an urban area, but be undeveloped?

I don't veiw the deterence of urban sprawl as a bad thing. The majority of the US electorate lives in the suburbs, though. They might disagree.

So, it is hard to see change happening. For me, I do what I can to argue my point of view, oftentimes. When I try to put the onus of responsibility on the individuals that benefit, I dont' make friends. But I believe that is right.

OTOH, I don't want to continually confront my suburban friends. I know individuals need to make the right decisons for themselves and their families.

In the case of Cranberry, (technically an "exurb") 20 years ago there was no there, there. There was empty land (assuming you consider cows and corn "empty"), cars existed, so a highway was built, 279. Then strip malls were built. Then people started moving in around the strip malls. The small number of people who did live there were landowners who wanted to cash in big. They knew exactly what they were doing and guided things exactly the way they wanted it. The people who live there now knew exactly what they were getting into, it's exactly what they want, that's why they moved there. I would bet money that there are few people out there who would have done anything differently had they been able.

Not a happy story, but that's the story.

Hmmm...

Thinking.

The thing that would change the formula is $20 gasoline.

But I'm not naive enough to think I'd be doing just fine, thank you, because I bike. That might mean collapse of the country. We're all in it together.

one part of the equation that has yet to be mentioned is the collapse of the american family farm. why do you think those farmers were so eager to sell off their land instead of leaving to their kids? answer, the kids all gave up farming because you can barely break even on a family farm, much less live comfortably.

@ALMKLM And I can't understand the notion that living in the City imbues the City Resident some moral high ground because the use their car less or not at all.

There have been several times that I rejected otherwise fine living arrangements just over the city line for two reasons

1) I couldn't walk to work. I didn't bike then much, and I believed every time I went "anywhere," (ie. the city) I would be supporting oil comapnies and the attendent killings and US supported dictatorships in the mid-east. As well as not helping my health one bit.

2) I felt that skipping my city taxes, while it would be nice piece of savings, was essentially theft.

Yes, my girlfriend who I lkoved with all my heart found my reasoning on these things frustrating. She would not csider living where she had to pay the city taxes while she worked at Pitt and took clases there. She thought I should buy a car. I could afford one, and she saw no other valid reason for a person not to have one.

So, those decisions were not pain-free for me.

I believed then, and I still do, that both of those rationales had a strong moral component. Right is right.

I believe that if you fail to understand that, ALMKLM, it's because you are trying so hard to be blind. As you said to me earlier in the thread, "You're a smart guy."

@cburch one part of the equation that has yet to be mentioned is the collapse of the american family farm. why do you think those farmers were so eager to sell off their land instead of leaving to their kids? answer, the kids all gave up farming because you can barely break even on a family farm, much less live comfortably.

And high gas prices that would slow the urban sprawl would kill a lot of farmers, methinks.

I want to hear about this guy who apparently gets stopped in Edgewood all the time. "Stopped" in what way? While riding a bike? What's the situation when this happens?

@ieverhart.

My sense is "some times" not "all the time."

I just related what he told me. I don't know enough to answer most questions. If you want, I'll introduce you to him sometime

I had mixed feeling bringing an outside person's name into this. I put Joe's name in because some people here know him, because I don't think Joe would mind being asked about it - at least by most folks here, and because putting a name to that allegation gives it more credibility than "I heard that..."

Figured I'd resurrect this thread due to the two-part article in the P-G about UPMC's non-profit status.

I just got a tax bill in the mail from my city here in MA. At first I was a little confused over the unexpected tax, but upon further reflection, it seems like a great way to generate some revenue for the local community from people who can afford it. Poking around a bit, it appears that a motor vehicle excise tax is mandatory for the entire state:

http://cground.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/What%20is%20motor%20vehicle%20excise%20tax.pdf

http://watertown-ma.gov/index.aspx?nid=253

http://www.brooklinema.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=172&Itemid=417

In short, your car is valued anywhere from 90% of its MSRP down to 10% of its MSRP, and you pay $25 for every $1000 your car is valued at. Buy a $40k car, you owe your local community $900 that first year.

I've never lived anywhere else with such a tax. Why don't more places have it?

From the RAD budget for 2012:

"The Allegheny Land Trust will receive $50,000 next year and in 2013 to help build a switchback ramp at the Mon Wharf to connect the Three Rivers Heritage Trail to Point State Park."

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11333/1193360-100.stm#ixzz1f8OtkinE

@dwillen how is this different than the 6% sales tax (7% in Allegheny County) we have on cars in PA?

@dmtroyer - Pennsylvania's tax is on sales; it sounds like Massachusetts' is annually, on ownership, regardless of transfer. Like property taxes, which you pay annually, not just if you sell the property.

You pay sales tax once when you buy a car. In MA that is 6.25% (depending on where you are) and that money goes to the state.

We didn't buy our car in MA, but we moved it here. We paid the DMV a hefty chunk to register the car. I imagine that money goes to the state. We also had to pay $100 each to transfer an out-of-state driver's license to a MA driver's license (they make you pay for a renewal + driving exam, but don't actually make you take any exams).

You pay excise tax on your car every year you own that car. It varies from ~2.5% the first year and decreases with the value of the car. For us, the city we moved to billed us directly. The money, as far as I can tell, goes directly to our city. We will get another bill next year for the same amount. The values are based on the original MSRP, not the actual value of the car. The only way to not pay it is to move out of the city (in which case you'd pay a different city your excise tax), sell the car, junk the car, or have the car stolen. Those were our only options.

@ieverhart I missed that part. Other states have property taxes on autos, Jim Gilmore was elected governor of Virginia when I was a kid on the platform of eliminating the "car tax".

Ieverhart is correct, it is a property tax for your car(s).

California has a similar tax. It was something like $300 annually to register my relatively new (at that time) car.

I dimly remember that Georgia has a similar tax structure on car ownership based on the vehicle's value.

I imagine most know this, but for what it's worth, PA's annual registration/plate costs go up based on the vehicle's weight rating/class, e.g., $36 for a car, around $155 for a 3/4 ton truck, $198 for a one ton truck, and I imagine it goes up from there. I don't know the minutia of how it works, but upping the plate costs for heavier vehicles seems pretty reasonable to me.

Here they have registration fees to get your plates/new tags, but they also have this other excise tax that you pay whether your car is registered/drivable or not.

MA is still paying for the Big Dig highway project in downtown Boston so they raised/created this automobile registration fees. The 3.5 miles of the Big Dig is estimated to cost over $22 Billion dollars (after interest). That is about $1.2 Million dollars per foot of highway.

States that have a personal property tax to register a vehicle usually don’t have a sales tax or personal income tax.

a quick googling indicates the new highway will have at least 8 lanes (up to 10 in places), which means its less than or equal to $150k per foot per lane. what a bargain!

I like the idea of the increased registration fees. Unfortunately MA is using this revenue to pay off a massive debt.

A lot of this project was Federal tax dollars. I remember the Senate investigation hearings started when the cost reached about $10B and the project was not even half complete. The Fed pulled back on funding and MA had to sell bonds to finish it.

Increased registration (and license) fees were, along with an increased gas tax, part of the recommendations of the governor's transportation funding committee. While those revenues go into the motor license fund, which is constitutionally dedicated to highway and bridge construction/repair, they would have at least freed up some other money which would have gone to public transit (which we need BADLY). Unfortunately, neither the legislature or governor have acted on the recommendations.

@WillB good point, the fees will go to the state & no guarantee it will do any good. It’s interesting to note States that have the personal property tax vehicle registration do this at the County level. You need to pay the tax and register your vehicle with the County Court house not the State DMV.

new article in today's PG

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11339/1194685-53.stm