AntiRust

Rural (Re)Developments: Who Owns the Woods?

The New York Times has two--count 'em, two--riveting articles about rural development and the ramifications of the tourist economy. These are fascinating subjects on their own.

But I would be remiss not to point out that these same debates are hashing out much closer to home on the Allegheny National Forest. No, it ain't Yellowstone. And it ain't Big Sky. But the anxieties are the same, at least for the people who live there.

Yes, Pennsylvania, you do have a national forest. And a fascinating one. Pay attention. If not to me, at least keep up with the issues. It's important.

Redevelopment, Property Taxes, Abatements, Suburban Shopping and Big Fat Messes

Not so long ago I linked to a story out of Cleveland, where a developer is converting an old steelyard into a big-box shopping center. (The link in the original post might be dead by now.)

Well, things there are getting interesting. Seems that the plan calls for using some of the millions in new property tax revenue to prop up local retailers and build a trail. Great plan. Only... there might be no new property taxes:

[Developer Mitchell] Schneider and some of the major retailers who bought parcels within Steelyard Commons took part in an Ohio program that encourages developers to clean up brownfields on their own dime in return for certification that bars the state or anyone else from ever bringing an environmental lawsuit against them. Without such liability protection, many reclamation projects would never get financed.

But the Covenant Not to Sue brings another perk: a 10-year exemption from all property taxes on the increased value of the cleaned-up land. At the moment, it's a mandatory exemption that involves no local government approval and supersedes any tax arrangements a developer might prefer.

Whoops!

Downtown Housing: A Man, Another Man, and a Plan

Mayor Ravenstahl and Councilman Peduto are proposing similar plans for revitalizing Pittsburgh's housing. Read the Post-Gazette story here. It's fascinating stuff.

Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and city Councilman William Peduto yesterday introduced competing plans for giving 10-year tax breaks on new housing, primarily Downtown.

Both men, candidates for mayor in this year's election, proposed plans that would give housing developers abatements of 100 percent on their city property taxes for 10 years.

Though the intention of both plans is to boost Downtown housing, Mr. Ravenstahl's would include 20 city neighborhoods, while Mr. Peduto's would be concentrated in the Downtown, lower Hill District, Uptown, Strip District, and on the North Shore and South Side.

The tax breaks would aid not only developers but also people who buy the units.

That last bit is good. I think it makes sense to give actual residents a break in addition to the Piatt family. And I also think there is another HUGE step in the right direction here:

According to the study Mr. Peduto presented, all three taxing bodies would see tax revenue go up, in part because people will move in and pay wage taxes. By 2021, the consultant estimated, the city, county and school district would be getting a combined $56.8 million more in property and wage taxes than they would without the abatement plan.

Wow. Actual PREDICTIONS. A definable measure of success. I don't know much about the rest of the plan, but the predictions are a good thing.

I wonder what else it addresses. Like... Where the new downtown residents would come from. Is this resident shifting or adding new residents to the city? To the region? The details revealed in the PG might indicate that the tax numbers rely on new residents to the REGION. Because the COMBINED taxes paid to city, county and school district are supposed to go up. That would be hard to do by just shifting people from Shadyside to downtown. Or even Cranberry to downtown.

Or would it? That wage tax statement in the last quote seems like a bit of a hedge. I am not sure why. But it has me worried. What's it mean? I guess I will have to wait to see the report. But it seems like it means that people will be shortsighted and not take the wage tax into account--because they will get this tax abatement for all these years. Then... wham! We'll whack 'em with the wage tax and they'll be stuck. That might well be the case. People are often shortsighted.

But if this means that the long-term tax benefits will have less to do with new residents and more to do with wage taxes, this starts looking like resident shifting again. That might be a good idea for the city, especially if it means switching people from the county into the city. What would it mean for the county? Again, I'll wait to see the report.

Last, my constant question remains: If this is such a good idea, why privilege downtown and a few other residents in this way? If it is a good idea to get people to live in the city, and seeing that the entire city could use more residents, why not expand the program to anyone who will agree to move anywhere in the city? The mayor takes some pains in the article to point out that his plan does not focus only on downtown. But the reporters seem to think that's the focus.

So what's that mean? The people we are trying to get to move downtown are the young creative types with a lot of money. At least that's the kind of housing that's planned so far. So this sort of means that we are privileging those taxpayers for the near future. Which means they will not chip in for schools and roads and other things property taxes pay for. But these people will add to the cost of providing schools and roads, etc. Which means that the other, older taxpayers will have to pick up the slack. Other, older taxpayers who are not necessarily as young, creative and wealthy as their new neighbors.

That might be a great bargain for all involved in the end. But it requires a delicate political touch. Or a deaf ear. I wonder which strategy the leaders in question will employ.

Either way, I am going to look for Peduto's plan now to see which predictions it actually makes.

Update: I have not seen the plan yet, but a question: Is it possible to see this as an end-around on the city's 10 percent TIF limit? There was some squawking last year about how the city had already bestowed all the TIF financing that the state would allow it to bestow.

Now, I know a TIF is technically different than the tax abatement being proposed here. But in the end, is it six of one and half-a-dozen of another? If this is focused on downtown, and we are primarily building condos downtown, doesn't the beneft generally drift in the developer direction? (I don't see a lot of people breaking ground on single-family homes in the Fifth-Forbes corridor.) And isn't a TIF basically a tax break?

Just wondering if there is a connection.

I'll Take My Condo: Would Someone Please Stop That Infernal Buzzing!

So when do you know that an urban redevelopment strategy has gone from cutting edge to... well... a caricature? Maybe when it finds a voice in Conway, Arkansas.

Yep. Good ole Conway. On the cutting edge to "market" the place with a "buzz" that will attract empty-nesters and creative young people and just about everyone else. They are even unveiling the old loft-style-condominium ploy.Check out the profile in the New York Times:

For decades, colleges like Hendrix in rural areas of the country embraced a pastoral ideal, presenting themselves as oases of scholarship surrounded by nothing more distracting than lush farmland and rolling hills. But many officials at such institutions have decided that students today want something completely different: urban buzz. “You can’t market yourself as bucolic,” J. Timothy Cloyd, the Hendrix president, said.

At the same time, officials have realized that a more urbanized version of the ideal campus could attract a population well past its college years — working people and retiring baby boomers — if there is housing to suit them. And so a new concept of the college campus is taking root: a small city in the country that is not reserved for only the young.

Somewhere, 12 Southerners are turning over in their graves.

I'm not saying this strategy won't work in Conway. But I am starting to wonder where it won't.

Convention Center Woes

Wow. The floor collapse at the convention center keeps looking worse and worse. One of the major attributes that supporters have leaned on over the years involve the facility's basic structure: It's innovate! It's green! It's...

...defective?

That hurts. But it might be the case. According to County Executive Dan Onorato:

No decision has been made on whether the two-week auto show, slated to begin Saturday, will go ahead. It is to be followed by the annual home and garden show. The two events are among the biggest annual shows on the center's calendar.

But Mr. Onorato said "We're not going to put anybody in the building until we get clearance that it is safe."

He said there appears to be "a major defect in the building."

Not a defect. A major defect. Ouch. Although another official indicates that the problem is isolated. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But if there is a major defect, I don't think that even a new convention center hotel will cure what ails us.

Exploring the Subsidy Abyss

Three cheers to the Post-Gazette and Bill Toland for this captivating piece on the nature of subsidized development. I agree with a lot of it. Disagree with some of it. But that is as it should be. Check it out for yourself. It's well done.

The only thing I will initially critique is this:

"Focusing in on your Downtown is critical for any region, especially the Pittsburgh region," said Patty Burk, vice president of housing and development for the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership. "I think our core has been neglected for many years ... It's the best it's been in 20 years, but that doesn't mean it's up to market rate."

And when a core has been neglected, often the only way to encourage development is to take the risk out of big projects. That's especially true in older cities, where office leases and apartment rental prices are low, but construction costs are still high. Subsidies and credits for Millcraft, for example, means there's a better chance that the company will turn a profit on its Fifth and Forbes improvement project.

Our core has been neglected for many years? How many? And neglected in what sense? My gosh, Pittsburgh has been the poster child for "revitalization" for 60 years. Google "David L. Lawrence" and "Richard King Mellon" and see for yourself. Seriously.

Is that a little long in the tooth for you? Fine. Drive downtown once. What's that huge yellow thing? Locals refer to it as "Heinz Field." Then there is a little thing known as "PNC Park." A convention center. Across the river you'll see South Side Works.

Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Good grief. You can say a lot of things about what downtown Pittsburgh needs and doesn't need. But to base your analysis on an historic "neglect" of the "core" in terms of subsidies seems to fly in the face of reality. 

Well, OK. One more point:

These observations come to the fore because Pittsburgh, after years of relative inactivity Downtown, is in the midst of what is undeniably a construction boom, with new office towers, condos, Market Square apartments and possibly a new arena under way or on the drawing board. And it's also undeniable that the boom is being propped up by tens of millions in state and local subsidies.

Could you argue that "tens of millions" understates the case? Do the stadiums count? I know they went up a few years ago. And they are across the river. But people often point to them when referring to Pittsburgh's downtown "vibrancy." Throw in all the TIFs. Throw in the subsidies and other support for the existing infrastructure down there (including all the projects from Renaissance I, II, and the rest of it) and I think you are talking hundreds of millions. At least you have to address the fact that all that spending resulted in "years of relative inactivity." Remember, we spent all those hundreds of millions of dollars because someone promised that it would deliver activity. It didn't.

Again, I understand that Toland is referring more to the construction cranes that are currently operating on new projects. But if you are going to talk about the "core" being historically "neglected"...

Pennsylvania Gun Violence

An editorial in today's Post-Gazette points to a study from the Violence Policy Center that says Pennsylvania has the nation's worst rate of black homicide. Predictably, the editorial uses this occasion to call for stricter gun control laws.

This conclusion begs the question, of course. There is a huge debate about whether or not gun control actually reduces murder and other crime rates. The Post-Gazette does not mention this debate. Instead, it resorts to its shabby habit of declaring that everyone who disagrees with the paper's position is beholden to vicious power-mongers:

Pennsylvania's top rank in these statistics is a national disgrace. It's time the state ignored the special interests and acted to curb the violence that preys upon all people -- black, white and everyone else.

First: Bullshit.

Second, if this is true--that there is some correlation between gun control laws and the black homicide rate--this study might be a great place to explore that correlation. As such, I have trolled the Internet a bit for views on the states with the most and least restrictive gun laws. I have not come across any "official" rankings. But if you are aware of some, I could check any states I leave out. In the meantime, here is a list of states traditionally considered "pro-gun" and where they rank on the VPC homicide study:

PA: 1

TX: 28

VT: 12 (With such a low population, the state was one murder away from being first on the list. And one murder away from being last.)

NH: 43

AK: 33

Now to the states with famously restrictive gun laws:

NJ: 18

MA: 29

CA: 4

NY: 32

HI: 47

I am not sure what you can conclude from this. And you can change how things look by carefully picking which states to highlight. This was a completely unscientific approach. But I think that it's clear that some states that have strict gun control laws have high homicide rates. And vice-versa. What does that mean? Tough to say.

But I do think that it is even TOUGHER to say, unequivocally, that a state's position anywhere on this list amounts to a good argument for or against gun control. And that the Post-Gazette's sanctimony is, yet again, a huge, heaping pile of nonsense.

Speaking of which, the Post-Gazette also fails to mention a study that the VPC study conducted a few years ago. The conclusion? A very dashing and handsome young writer once paraphrased thusly: That we need more gun control because people are too stupid to figure out how to use guns.

OK, maybe not so dashing. Or handsome. Or young. But he was a writer.

More on Cars, Cities and Suburbs

Here's a really interesting take on cars in New York City. In it, Vogue editor Robert Sullivan laments that NYC has lost its leadership in the fight against the American automobile. The essay is provocatively titled, "The City that Never Walks." Even more provocative is his explanation for this phenomenon:

One reason New York is losing its New York edge may be that the city’s revival is partly based on a strange reversal: the city is the new suburb. Families have returned to the New York that was abandoned years ago for lawns and better public schools. They’ve brought with them a love of cars. A new study by Bruce Schaller, a local transportation consultant, shows that half the drivers in Manhattan are from the city — and that more city residents than suburbanites drive to work every day.

This theory puts a bit of a spin on the notion that empty-nesters and creative types are abandoning the suburbs because they have developed a distaste for cars and commuting, and prefer to use public transit and/or walk to work. Some of that is clearly going on. But a lot of other people... really love their cars. And they like driving to work. Even in NYC, where it is a nightmare.

It challenges standard economic analysis. And it defies the notion of economic rationalism. But there you have it.

Check out the article, either way. It offers an obligatory blast at Robert Moses, and another at the enormous Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn.

Penguin Hunting: The High Cost of Failure

Civic leaders in Kansas City are going to feel like heroes if their plan to build a hockey arena manages to lure the Penguins.

But if they don't? Well, things might get pretty grim. Because the arena is not the only thing they have built in recent years. Other enormous projects include an entertainment district and..gasp... a convention center upgrade. That's expensive stuff. And a few people are starting to wonder:

The Penguins hockey team might move here. The Power & Light entertainment district is signing up tenants. And additional conventions are being recruited for the expanded Bartle Hall.

Kansas City residents may want to cross their fingers that all those deals come through. Because if they don’t, residents might find more potholes in their streets and more broken equipment in their parks.

That’s one of the sobering messages from a new report on Kansas City’s spending for streets, bridges, parks and the like.

The Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce found that the city’s commitment to maintaining its infrastructure has been faltering — and the situation could get worse.

And here's a former city auditor, now a candidate for mayor, slamming the arena project in an interview with Governing.com:

What's your biggest regret on leaving the auditors' office?

The regret that I have leaving the office is that I was not aggressive enough. While it seemed like I was aggressive as an auditor, there was so much more that I could have done. The city, for example, entered into a deal to build a basketball arena that just stinks. And I never took that on as an audit. It would have been difficult and risky, but I should have done it. Also, the city is in very shaky financial condition, and while I did a lot to work with that, I should have done more.

I'd vote for him. And not just because of his views on the arena. His name is Mark Funkhouser. And I think just about any city helmed by a "Mayor Funkhouser" is headed in the right direction.

By the way, here's more on the Sprint Center that KC is using to lure the Pens.

Casino as Redevelopment Plan: Conflicting Reports

Huh. I think we have a disagreement. From a story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 23, 2006:

"We found no evidence that a casino has ever been a stimulant or a catalyst for the revitalization of any neighborhood," [City Planning Director Pat] Ford said.

Now this, from the Post-Gazette's website:

"The [Pennsylvania Gaming Control] board finds that... PITG's North Shore location boasts great potential for the rebirth of development and economic stimulus in that area and that PITG's ability to manage traffic was better than that of Station Square Gaming," the opinion said.

Weird. Who's right?