The Post-Gazette is reporting that Millcraft, the latest company in charge of revitalizing downtown Pittsburgh, is seeking $18 million in state subsidies. For a $71 million project. That's more than one out of every four dollars coming out of your pocket. The governor is balking, but it seems clear that he'll pitch in something. How much is the question. But in the meantime, read the article for a bit of strangeness:
Lucas Piatt, Millcraft vice president of real estate, said much of the requested state aid would be used for infrastructure-related improvements, such as facades, sidewalks, and water and sewer lines.
The state's inability to provide the full $18 million wouldn't kill the project, but it could affect the developer's ability to offer more moderately priced housing, Mr. Piatt said.
Doesn't that seem like a bit of strong-arming? In the first paragraph, he says that the state money would be used for infrastructure improvements. But then goes on to say that if he doesn't get the subsidies that the moderately priced housing will have to go.
But the subsidies aren't going to pay for the moderately priced housing. The subsidies are going to pay for facades and sidewalks. OK. So sewers are critical. But why not keep the ratio of high-end to low end the same? Say, build 150 apartments instead of 200?
Seems to me that what he's saying is, all this money goes into a big pot. When we're asking for it we're are going to act like it's going for "public" goods like sewers. Goes over better that way. But if it's slow in coming, we'll chop what civic leaders want most to make it as painful as possible.
Reminds me a lot of the classic case of city councils cutting policemen and libraries as soon as they face a budget crunch. Because they know people really don't want to cut those things. So instead of cutting them last...
Is there a name for that?
By the way, the paper identifies approximately 200 apartments and condos as part of the $71,000,000 project. The $18,000,000 subsidies would amount to $90,000 in public money for each residential unit.
I am guessing that my landlord paid less than $50,000 for the house I live in right now.
I suppose you could argue that there is more to this development than residential. But I could counter with the tried and true "nonsense." Remember: We tried drawing residents downtown with retail for 60 years and it didn't work. And everyone lauded the reversal of that strategy as a stroke of genius. That ultimately what we are doing is building a residential neighborhood that will draw other amenities that the new neighbors will like.
I'm just saying, $90,000 a pop seems like a pretty big subsidy for an apartment in Pittsburgh. especially when you are building 200 of them.
You ppl have no idea what kind of chaos your in for....
Posted by: | June 06, 2006 at 07:29 PM
The subsidies for the PNC deal and the Millcraft/Lazarus building deal are about 15-20 percent of total development. Look for the same in the other Millcraft deal. Also local govts. are probably on the hook for any major obstacle: an unexpected cache of asbestos, structural problem, Indian burial mound, what-have-you.
Again, I'm not saying I'm against these deals, but I hope that we get a number of smaller deals that add to the growth of Downtown.
Posted by: Mark | June 07, 2006 at 03:57 AM
I would agree with the previous comment, all the subsidies stink. But as a ex- New Yorker, I want to pose the question. How much is each parking garage subsidized? How much is Pittsburgh paying to kiss up to it's suburbs. Blow up the garages and try to find people who want to live in a functioning diverse city. New York flipped jersey the finger years ago and it was the best thing it ever did. Pittsburgh has to become a real city and not just a parking lot for people who live out of town.
Posted by: John Morris | June 11, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Taken from post gazette story:
That might not fly with city Councilman Bill Peduto. At minimum, he said, the city should get back what it paid. Mr. Ferlo said the city should consider moving ahead with the PNC office tower on Fifth, the redevelopment of Lazarus-Macy's and, perhaps, Murphy's and let the market do the rest.
"I don't know why we have to rush into this," he said.
Mr Peduto might do well to study the effects of speaking out against "friendly developers". When a Washington county commissioner questioned this developer in the local paper years back, He abrubtly resigned his post a short time later......
As I said earlier Pittsburgh u have no idea what your getting into...
Posted by: | June 11, 2006 at 06:41 PM
Please note the above comment was NOT posted by John Morris.
My apologies Mr Morris don't know why it showed up there....
Posted by: | June 11, 2006 at 06:47 PM
The name comes at the end of the post. Although it could look like a header, come to think of it. Not sure why Typepad does it that way.
But more critically: Any idea where to get details about the Washington County guy? Covered in the Post-Gazette?
Posted by: Sam M | June 11, 2006 at 07:05 PM
observer reporter, Washington county.
What I remember is this...
When Southpointe was going up the then Head County commissoner camre out publicly in the newspaper questioning why Millcraft/Jack Piatt were the only developers working on a State funded project.....
Soon after he resigned. Coincidental???? You decide.
Could not find links to any old print but I'm sure its out there..
Posted by: | June 11, 2006 at 07:40 PM
http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/20010624southpointe0624bnp3.asp
Posted by: | June 11, 2006 at 08:11 PM
http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_washington/20031019wacover2.asp
Posted by: | June 11, 2006 at 08:15 PM