AntiRust

More on Abatements. More on Downtown. And More on Where All the New People Will Come From.

Looks like the plan for residential tax abatements is making some headway in city council. Which could be a good thing. Or a bad thing. Check out the article. Seems like the main concern is which neighborhoods get the abatement. Here's how they picked the winners:

Administration representatives said that neighborhood eligibility is based on two factors. One is the neighborhood's score on a "vitality index" that factors in population losses, education levels, single-parent families, poverty, low home ownership, high vacancy, tax delinquency, violent crime and other factors. Another is a low level of new private building permits in 2005 and 2006.

But just hold on a second. Here's the list of neighborhoods that qualified:

Allentown, Arlington, Beltzhoover, Bluff/Uptown, California-Kirkbride, Downtown, East Allegheny, Elliott, Esplen, Fineview, Hays, Hazelwood, Homewood North, Homewood South, Homewood West, Knoxville, Larimer, Lincoln-Lemington-Belmar, Lower Lawrenceville, Manchester, Marshall-Shadeland, Perry South/Perry Hilltop, Sheraden, Spring Garden, the Strip District, the Upper Hill District, Upper Lawrenceville, the West End, and the Mount Oliver neighborhood, which is next to the separate municipality of Mount Oliver.

Note that it includes Downtown. Huh? Downtown is BOOMING as a residential destination. Maybe that's just an illusion, you say? Well, no it's not. How do I know? Try this article. The Post-Gazette published it last September 24. It's headlined: "Downtown housing boom no illusion." Here's how it begins (I'll emphasize a few parts):

Downtown's residential renaissance is producing its first fruits.

Developers say they are having little trouble finding people willing to spend $250,000 or more to buy a Downtown condo or as much as $3,275 a month to rent an apartment.

Since opening at the end of April, the new Encore on 7th has leased 73 percent of its 151 units, with most rents ranging from $1,400 to $3,275 a month.

The Golden Triangle's newest condominium building, 151 First Side, has commitments on 43 of 80 units, with prices ranging from $250,000 to $500,000. Piatt Place at the former Lazarus-Macy's building has lined up buyers on 10 of 65 condos, with prices running from $335,400 to $634,500, in the four months the sales office has been open.

"It exceeds our expectations. We're excited about it," said Jack Piatt, chairman of Millcraft Industries Inc., the developer.

I haven't seen the bill. But I wonder. Does it automatically include Downtown, then apply the two factors to everywhere else? Or does Downtown qualify anyway?

Who developed these factors? When? How? Any chance they were reverse engineered to make sure certain places got included? I honestly have no idea. But this seems strange. We have very recently heard that Downtown in undergoing yet another Renaissance. That projects like Piatt Place and the PNC skyscraper deserved public support because they were going to revitalize the moribund Forbes-Fifth Corridor and give us a 24-hour downtown. Come on. You remember. It was only a few months ago. Then, after that, we got lots of promises about a new hockey arena and how it would help, er, revitalize downtown. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

So which is it? If all those projects are going to work, why do we need to include Downtown in the abatement plan? If they aren't going to work, and Downtown still needs the abatements to thrive, why is the public pitching in to pay for those projects?

Is there a single other neighborhood in Pittsburgh that has received more in terms of attention and public investment than Downtown? As such, shouldn't it be dead last to receive these abatements, if we insist on picking some neighborhoods to receive them while leaving others out? Maybe we ought to just apply them across the board? Back to that original article about the abatements:

Going to a citywide tax break would mean giving up tax revenue in areas "where market-driven development activities are occurring," said city Finance Director Scott Kunka. "When you go citywide, we expect the program will cost the city $75 million over the life of the program." The abatement is, instead, designed so that new property revenue the city gives up is offset by gains in wage and other taxes.

But wait. Is he saying that "market driven development activities" are not going on Downtown? Where the housing market is just kicking the bejeezus out of the Piatt's expectations? And what about "gains in wages and other taxes"? Interesting. That means someone has a formula for how many of the residents drawn in by such development would come from outside the city. Which is what I have been looking for forever.

Anyone help me out on that? A while back I contacted Peduto's office about that question. I got some interesting results, which I never posted. Maybe I will. (Nothing scandalous. Like I said... just interesting.) I wonder if this plan, which seems to be the mayor's, uses a similar "formula."

Hmmmm...

UPDATE: I went back to the "No Illusions" story in the Post-Gazette to see if there was any mention of the "market" for development downtown. There was a lot of mention. Here are some snippets:

... It's a whole lot of housing to add to the 1,290 rental and condo units available in the Golden Triangle. But several studies over the past five years have indicated the demand is there to match it. They suggest the Downtown market can absorb 100 to 250 units a year...

... And a recent Carnegie Mellon University study found that demand for Downtown housing among young professionals far exceeds the supply. ...

... "We're very confident that the marketplace can hold and support this amount of residential Downtown [development] that's going to roll out over the next five years," said Greg Hammill, regional vice president of Howard Hanna Real Estate Services. ...

... Mr. Hammill said Howard Hanna's own marketing studies have suggested that demand exists. He said the Encore, with nearly three-quarters of its units rented, is a "great indication" of demand for Downtown living. "We're very optimistic about that market," he said. ...

Now, this is obviously pretty obtuse. What does "market" mean? Depends. But clearly, people have been telling us for well over a year that there is a huge demand for downtown housing, that certain public investments would help developers meet that demand, and that they were doing so quite nicely. Presto! Renaissance IV.

So, again, if we are trying to avoid using the abatements in areas that are already getting attention from "the market," uh...

Come on, guys. Spread it to the whole darn city.

MacYapper on Smoking: At Least He's Honest

I completely disagree with John McIntire about smoking bans. (He's all for government goon squads kicking down doors to stop the BINGO ladies from enjoying a Carlton. I'm against it. That's paraphrasing, of course. But snark is allowed, I think.) Still, I admire his honesty. Here's what he had to say about recent developments:

Despite my longtime advocacy of a local smoking, I will concede a statewide ban is preferable. I just thought we'd need some local bans to wake the legislature up. Plus I'm tired of stinking when I leave a bar. I hope the county appeals, but even if they do and they're successful, it could take forever.

Well, I'm tired of driving my car into a ditch everytime I drink a bottle of Wild Turkey. So is the solution for the government to ban alcohol in Wild Turkey, and to fine anyone who chooses to drink the real stuff? Or would it be better for me to just stop drinking it? Or let's say I am tired of my ears ringing every time I leave the dance club. Should I lobby my congressman to ban loud music? Or should I go somehwere where they play music at a volume I like?

Exactly.

Now, McIntire has told me in e-mails that he really does worry about the health of workers. And that he thinks second-hand smoke is "poison gas." OK. But sorry. Not good enough. Almost everything is poison to some degree or another. And the questions is whether SHS more of a danger than other risks we allow other workers to face. 9Is tending bar in a smoky restaurant really as dangerous as logging? No.) And there are a lot of reasons to doubt that SHS rises to that level. If you read the studies. Maybe he has. But most people don't. Because they are basing their support of the ban on the same thing McIntire says in his blog post: They don't like how it smells.

That, friends, is a slippery slope. Lots of people don't like lots of things.

Still, we all know that McIntire will eventually win this one. Good for him, I guess. But don't be surprised when someone bans whatever it is you like. Heck, I would suspect that a lot of people with a lot of political power are tired of hearing bad words on the radio every time the go past McIntire's show.

It's going to happen.

What people are "tired of" is a really crappy basis for a law. And silly. Even if the person who's tired of it is John McIntire. Maybe you don't have a "right to smoke." But you don't have a right to not be so fatigued of stinky shirts, either.

And You Thought Pittsburgh Was Weird About Nostalgia

I am not sure what this says about the state of Amercian cities. But it must say something. Check it out: It's a treatise about New Yorkers fondly recalling the dirt, grime and crime of the late 70s and early 80s. When you could smoke in New York, and catch a porno. And get stabbed. Methinks it has something to do with "authenticity" or some other thing I can't understand:

A lot has changed from a quarter-century ago or so, when our fair city was best known for graffiti-decorated subways, blasting boom boxes and the faint smell of urine rising from the summer pavement. There were no Tinsley Mortimers, no hedge-fund gods. No $1,000 pizzas or latte factories, no $50 million mansions or elliptical trainers at Equinox. Indeed, in 1975, the city’s government declared bankruptcy. “Ford to City: Drop Dead” blasted the Daily News, after the President refused to bail us out, and, two years later, it seemed like a serial murderer named Son of Sam was determined to deliver the sentence.

The rest of the country thought we were goners, collapsed in a sputter of crime, crack and fiscal disaster. There were landlords burning down their buildings—you couldn’t give ‘em away! Hookers hanging out on 83rd and Broadway—right near Zabar’s!

But you know what? We liked it.

The dog shit was piled so high in the streets you needed a mountain ax just to traverse the sidewalk—but we liked it. The buildings were so blackened by grime you could barely see them in the dark—but we liked it. The subways were so dangerous you felt you were descending into Hell—and we liked it, we loved it, hallelujah!

Makes our nostalgia for the steel mills look positively normal, no?

What's even stranger is that almost all of the people quoted in the article are in their 30s. Around my age. So they can hardly remember the Charles Bronson Death Wish era. Right?

Academic Excellence: What's the University of Pittsburgh For?

Today's Post-Gazette has an editorial urging the University of Pittsburgh to replace rather than renovate Hillman Library. The reason?

Pitt is planning to spend $52 million to repair Hillman Library, the largest of its 17 libraries and its flagship resource center. But if the university wants to chart a course toward academic excellence and national prominence, it should rethink the project and opt for replacement instead of renovation.

...Clearly under Chancellor Mark Nordenberg, Pitt has been striving to reach a higher plateau. ... Those who built the Cathedral of Learning dreamed big, and today the university can revel in the attention it gets as one of the rising "public Ivies."

This is a topic worth discussing. To what extent is "national prominence" one of the university's goals? I suspect it is, to be honest. But how do you define that? I think that a lot of small community colleges gain "national prominence" by being innovative and aggressive in pursuit of their goals. That is, one way to get a lot of respect is to "do what you do" very well. Well, what does Pitt do? Is it a school for Pennsylvania students who want a solid, affordable education? Or is it a school for people who want a prestigious degree? Sure, that's a false choice. Blah blah blah. But look around. This is controversial stuff. Look at other "public Ivies" such as the University of Virginia and the University of Michigan. Great schools. But are they serving their states well? Or have they turned too many of their desks over to students from out of state, from out of the U.S.? Do they cost too much? Do they spend too much on prestigious faculty that do little teaching?

Who gains from this "prestige"? Who loses? As the school gets more selective, you have to ask these sorts of questions. If your kid has the grades to get into Harvard, maybe he should just go to Harvard if that's what he wants. Even more interestingly, let's say he does want to stick around here. Is he also the kind of kid who needs/deserves state support for his schooling? That is, does Pitt's strange existence as a "state affiliated" university become even stranger? And what about Penn State? Does that need to be a "public Ivy," too? Why? (According to Wikipedia, it already is one.) Why were eight Ivy League schools enough in the past? Why do we need scores of them now? Does it stop meaning anything if, in addition to every kid in America being above average, every college is, too? And what about Carnegie Mellon? Is that "Ivy" to some extent? How does its presence impact the need for another such institution?

Pitt is not alone in this. Take a look at the University of Maryland. It has gotten incredibly expensive. And incredibly selective. Does it serve its original purpose anymore?

Full disclosure, to those of you who don't know: I teach at Pitt. But I have only been there for two years. And I suspect that the faculty has been having this discussion for a while now. And I am certainly not opposed to making the school the best it can be. I just wonder what that means in terms of cost and selectivity. It'll be interesting to see how things play out.

Again, I am not sure where I stand on this. I haven't thought about it enough. Thoughts?

Arena Dealings: Are the Pittsburgh Penguins "True Gentlemen"?

The Kansas City Star is reporting that managers at the Sprint Arena are now trying to land the Seattle Super Sonics. Maybe they will have better luck than they did with the Penguins. By the way, it seems like KC might still be smarting from that experience. From the article:

“You have a commissioner who is on the record (supporting a move),” [Tim] Leiweke said. “I believe that team is in play (for Kansas City), and I believe [Super Sonics Chairman] Clay [Bennett] is going to keep the ownership.

“You heard from Clay (on Monday), that wasn’t bull. Clay is one of the more honorable men I’ve ever met. He’s a true gentleman. He’s not using this is as leverage, and he is not putting gasoline on the fire.”

Using Kansas City as leverage? What sort of guy would ever do such a thing?

The Post-Gazette Demands Kinder, Gentler Editorial Pages (Ha! Ha ha!)

Hey, look. I'm completely open to the idea that the Tribune-Review's "Rohr Box" is over the top. (Every day it pairs a photo of PNC honcho Jim Rohr with a brief caption blasting him for accepting subsidies to build PNC's new skyscraper.) But the fact that the Post-Gazette is running a story about it would seem to indicate that the campaign is having at least one of its desired effects: Getting under people's skin.

Here's an interesting bit from the article::

"I think there are all kinds of good reasons to cringe at this kind of campaign, which comes very close to suggesting that this guy, himself, Jim Rohr, is pocketing this money," said former newspaper editor and columnist Edward Wasserman, now a professor of journalism ethics at Washington & Lee University in Lexington, Va.

Say what you want about the Trib, but I don't think it has done that at all. As far as I can tell, it has never said or implied that Rohr is diverting this money to his own accounts. Of course, I would be willing to look at evidence to the contrary.

But in the meantime, would it be indelicate to point out that the Post-Gazette is not exactly unfamiliar with the art of character assassination? (You knew this was coming) I can think of the PG's wild campaign of shrieking in support of the smoking ban. You know, in which the Post-Gazette said that "legislators need to stop kissing the feet of these businessmen and tobacco lobbyists and focus on two points made by the surgeon general." Which of course means that they currently are kissing the feet of these people. Which is certainly a step beyond "agreeing" with them. So what form does this foot kissing take? This is clearly as much an insinuation of graft and corruption as anything I have seen in the Trib.

Unsatisfied with that smear, the Post-Gazette later said: "More important, it is immoral to contend that profits trump workers' health." Um... did anyone say that? And for good measure, the editors added: "The only thing dirtier than the cigarette smoke in this situation is the politics."

So. The Post Gazette has painted people opposed to a smoking ban as corrupt, as immoral and as dirty politicians. While Mr. Rohr has someone criticizing him for accepting $48 million in public subsidies to assist his very profitable company.

The only difference that I can see between these two campaigns is that the Trib can actually prove that Rohr is doing what they say he is doing. In fact, he is not denying it. He is taking the subsidies. Can the Post-Gazette prove that anyone is kissing the feet of Big Tobacco? That anyone is immoral? That dirty politics are involved? If so, shouldn't they break such stories? Or at least stop preaching to the Trib?

Condo Controversy

Check out the happenings in Buffalo. Sounds familiar.

Do Cities Need Downtowns? What If They Are Accidental Cities?

From time to time, this blog considers ideas about "downtown" and "urban," how we define such terms and how they are related. But this blog is not alone, of course. To wit, the Brookings Institution is coming out with a new book that looks pretty intriguing. It's called Boomburgs: The Rise of America's Accidental Cities. Here are some details from the link. (There is also a sample chapter available. Check it out:

A glance at a list of America's fastest growing "cities" reveals quite a surprise: most are really overgrown suburbs. Places such as Anaheim, California, Coral Springs, Florida, Naperville, Illinois, North Las Vegas, Nevada, and Plano, Texas, have swelled to big-city size with few people really noticing—including many of their ten million residents. These "boomburbs" are large, rapidly growing, incorporated communities of more than 100,000 residents that are not the biggest city in their region. Here, Robert E. Lang and Jennifer B. LeFurgy explain who lives in them, what they look like, how they are governed, and why their rise calls into question the definition of urban.

Located in over twenty-five major metro areas throughout the United States, numerous boomburbs have doubled, tripled, even quadrupled in size between census reports. Some are now more populated than traditional big cities. The population of the biggest boomburb-Mesa, Arizona-recently surpassed that of Minneapolis and Miami.

Typically large and sprawling, boomburbs are "accidental cities," but not because they lack planning. Many are made up of master-planned communities that have grown into one another. Few anticipated becoming big cities and unintentionally arrived at their status. Although boomburbs possess elements found in cities such as housing, retailing, offices, and entertainment, they lack large downtowns.

There is talk of automobiles. Of single-family homes as the American Dream. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I am not really sure in what sense these "Boomburgs" are related to "edge cities" and a host of other definitions. But it seems like an interesting thing to consider. Check out the chapter.

Pittsburgh in Primetime: "Very Little to Suggest It's Cool"

Look out, Don Cannon. Here comes Frazier!

Today's New York Times has a story about new shows coming out this fall. One stars the guy who played Dr. Frazier Crane, along with the wife from Everybody Loves Raymond. Oh. And it stars Pittsburgh:

Fox’s “Back to You” also uses tried and true stars. With its homely title, it’s a vintage-looking multicamera sitcom about a Pittsburgh newsroom. There’s very little to suggest it’s cool. But in the preview Thursday, the quippy, wide-faced stars — Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton, both hyperaccomplished in prime time — seemed genuinely to irritate each other, in the kind of fast, feisty scenes with real payoff that TV stars like this couple can reliably deliver. If “Back to You” fails with this pedigree, the conventional sitcom really should be buried. (Please? Can we agree to that?)

Might be interesting to see what role the city would play, at least in the background.

I haven't been this excited since Mr. Belvedere.

UPDATE; Here's the show's official website. Check out that skyline! And a warning to those predisposed to be defensive: The story line is that a Pittsburgh newsman rose through the ranks in the 90s. Meaning that he got to leave Pittsburgh and go on to bigger and better things. But has now been forced to return to our humble little 'burgh.

Transit, Sprawl and Suburbia

Chris Briem recently pointed to a study of transit in the Philly area. Jonathan Potts chased it down a bit, and in turn pointed to this article about the study. Potts helpfully pulls this quote:

If SEPTA's latest budget crisis isn't averted, property values in Bucks will plummet, almost 60,000 jobs in the region will be lost, commuters will pay hundreds of dollars more per year and almost $90 million in tax revenue will vanish, according to a new study.

Check out all the links. In the meantime, one thing that strikes me can be seen in another part of the article Potts linked to:

According to the study, the loss of jobs plus an inefficient, expensive mass transit system would drive down property values by 6.6 percent, decreasing the value of a typical suburban home by about $6,900.

I wonder how this jives with the way some people view mass transit. I know a lot of people really hate sprawl. Some of them argue that roads are nefarious because they make it possible for people to leave cities and set up shop in the suburbs. And in effect take advantage of cities by working there, but living in far-flung places and starving urban centers of critical tax dollars. And that without roads, people would have to move back to cities. Or would be encouraged to do so.

But I wonder if this analysis also applies to transit to the burbs. Obviously, access to cheap transit is important to Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Merely making transit more expensive would affect home values to the tune of $7,000. Imagine what eliminating service would do. And clearly, Bucks County is part of the "suburban scourge." It is home to the second Levittown in the United States. Here's what Wiki has to say about how the suburban population grew (while Philly's declined):

Growth began in the early 1950, when William Levitt chose Bucks County for his second Levittown. Levitt bought hundreds of acres of woodlands and farmland, and constructed 17,000 homes and dozens of schools, parks, libraries, and shopping centers. At the time only people who were white could buy a home. This rule however, was soon overturned. Other planned developments included Croydon and Fairless Hills. This rapid sprawl continued till the mid-sixties.

In the 1970s, the second growth spurt began. This time developers took land in townships that were for the most part untouched. These included Middletown, Lower Makefield, and Newtown Township. Tract housing continued to move more and more towards Upper Bucks, swallowing horse farms, sprawling forests, and wetlands. At this time the Oxford Valley Mall was constructed in Middletown, which would become the business nucleus of the county.

Now, clearly, mass transit did not "cause" this out-migration. And clearly, the region was building roads at that same time. And clearly, connecting suburbs with roads has a different impact than connecting suburbs with transit. (Parking requirements come to mind.) But I was actually pretty surprised to see that the home values in Bucks were so reliant on transit. And I wonder what urban enthusiasts make of that. Sure, you could make a bigger impact by dealing with the roads. And maybe things would be better if you switched people out of cars and onto buses or trains. OK. Fine.

What I am wondering is whether or not anyone is enough of a purist to demand an end to the roads AND the transit. If anyone is so focused on the city to demand that mass transit end at the city line. That would REALLY force people back downtown, no?

That is, I think a lot of times people lump a lot of motivations together. That is, there are supposed to be two camps: people who are pro-car, pro-suburb and pro-sprawl, versus people who are pro-transit, pro-city and anti-sprawl. And those divisions seem to work given the current state of affairs. But I wonder if those affiliations will hold in all cases. I doubt it.