posted by Mike Madison at 6:37 PM /
One of my local correspondents sent me a copy of the flyer promoting attendance at Monday night's Commission meeting. Here it is:
The text may be a little hard to make out from the image (you can click on the image for a larger version). The flyer says:
Here and elsewhere, the opposition to Kossman relies on three allegations. My view is that none of them have merit. That's lawyer-ese for: Opposition isn't unanimous. I don't see any reason that the development shouldn't go forward. Here are the three allegations, and this is how I see them:
1. Mt. Lebanon commissioners and planning personnel are corrupt. Do we really want to go down this road? There's mud-slinging, and then there's hard evidence. Right now, all I see is mud. My bottom line: that's ridiculous.
2. The Kossman proposal will generate more traffic than the Castle Shannon Blvd./Mt. Lebanon Blvd. intersection can handle. (Variation: this is a quiet residential area not suited to office-oriented development.) My answer to the variation is: that's just not so. The traffic question is more important. "Too much traffic" is a standard move by the opposition in any development game. I've been through this before. Once in my Oakland, CA neighborhood, where Dreyer's Ice Cream wanted to build a large corporate headquarters; and once in my suburban California hometown, where the Catholic Church wanted to sell several hundred acres of open space, in the middle of town, to a luxury home developer. Both times, "traffic" and "it's not suited to a quiet residential neighborhood" were the rallying cries of the opposition. Both times, the opposition lost, and both times, the traffic failed to materialize. My bottom line: Is traffic going to be a problem? Maybe yes; maybe no. Experience teaches me to be skeptical of the traffic argument, and experience also teaches me that the argument isn't vehicular.
3. We shouldn't preserve remaining open space for the community. Kossman owns the property. If the community wants to save it for open space, then the community should put up the money to buy it. That might be the municipality (who's you willing to chip in via increased taxes?). That might be an environmental organization like The Nature Conservancy or the Trust for Public Land. That might be a neighborhood organization that puts together a bid. If the land is really that valuable as open space, then it shouldn't be too difficult to find the financing. Otherwise, there's no reason that Kossman (or any private landowner) should have to subsidize a public preference for parkland.
I've got more pro-Kossman arguments in hand, but my point is clear. Mt. Lebanon needs more high-value commercial development, not less. It needs to be more welcoming of real estate developers (though it needs to tax them fully), not less. And being more welcoming includes not nit-picking the proposal to death to satisfy the immediate neighbors. Developers know when to walk away, and they know when to run.
All of us who own residential real estate in Mt. Lebanon bear a crushing tax burden. One important way to ease that burden down the road is to increase tax revenues from commercial development. That doesn't mean that any old development is OK; the Kossman building doesn't belong in Bird Park. But the Castle Shannon/Mt. Lebanon Blvd. corridor has lots of other commercial development, and there's excellent public transportation right there. The Kossman building should go ahead.
The text may be a little hard to make out from the image (you can click on the image for a larger version). The flyer says:
Why was Kossman granted a unilateral six-month extension by our appointed City Manager effectively sabotaging prior Commission restrictions? Why did a stripped down Planning Board ignore residents’ pleas? Why did the Mt. Lebanon Traffic Engineer suddenly reverse allegiance and back a pro-Kossman set of calculations?
Why is Kossman building more office space in a glutted market when he has huge amounts of vacant space in his present buildings?
What should we tell our children when they ask why this lush acreage of green woods . . . this natural relief from man-made sprawl . . . will be destroyed forever? How can we ever again listen to the Commissioners pay phony lip-serve to green space?
What can we say to the 80+ year old seniors who have fought this for years and years and are now giving up?
Unlike The Sleepy Hollow sidewalk issue, public reaction against this is unanimous. Find out why Commissioners’ fear of law suits discourages the slightest illusion of empathizing and listening to the public that elected them.
Whatever happened to government of, by, and for the people?
Here and elsewhere, the opposition to Kossman relies on three allegations. My view is that none of them have merit. That's lawyer-ese for: Opposition isn't unanimous. I don't see any reason that the development shouldn't go forward. Here are the three allegations, and this is how I see them:
1. Mt. Lebanon commissioners and planning personnel are corrupt. Do we really want to go down this road? There's mud-slinging, and then there's hard evidence. Right now, all I see is mud. My bottom line: that's ridiculous.
2. The Kossman proposal will generate more traffic than the Castle Shannon Blvd./Mt. Lebanon Blvd. intersection can handle. (Variation: this is a quiet residential area not suited to office-oriented development.) My answer to the variation is: that's just not so. The traffic question is more important. "Too much traffic" is a standard move by the opposition in any development game. I've been through this before. Once in my Oakland, CA neighborhood, where Dreyer's Ice Cream wanted to build a large corporate headquarters; and once in my suburban California hometown, where the Catholic Church wanted to sell several hundred acres of open space, in the middle of town, to a luxury home developer. Both times, "traffic" and "it's not suited to a quiet residential neighborhood" were the rallying cries of the opposition. Both times, the opposition lost, and both times, the traffic failed to materialize. My bottom line: Is traffic going to be a problem? Maybe yes; maybe no. Experience teaches me to be skeptical of the traffic argument, and experience also teaches me that the argument isn't vehicular.
3. We shouldn't preserve remaining open space for the community. Kossman owns the property. If the community wants to save it for open space, then the community should put up the money to buy it. That might be the municipality (who's you willing to chip in via increased taxes?). That might be an environmental organization like The Nature Conservancy or the Trust for Public Land. That might be a neighborhood organization that puts together a bid. If the land is really that valuable as open space, then it shouldn't be too difficult to find the financing. Otherwise, there's no reason that Kossman (or any private landowner) should have to subsidize a public preference for parkland.
I've got more pro-Kossman arguments in hand, but my point is clear. Mt. Lebanon needs more high-value commercial development, not less. It needs to be more welcoming of real estate developers (though it needs to tax them fully), not less. And being more welcoming includes not nit-picking the proposal to death to satisfy the immediate neighbors. Developers know when to walk away, and they know when to run.
All of us who own residential real estate in Mt. Lebanon bear a crushing tax burden. One important way to ease that burden down the road is to increase tax revenues from commercial development. That doesn't mean that any old development is OK; the Kossman building doesn't belong in Bird Park. But the Castle Shannon/Mt. Lebanon Blvd. corridor has lots of other commercial development, and there's excellent public transportation right there. The Kossman building should go ahead.
6 Comments:
According to Laura Pace's story, some idiot compared allowing Kossman to build with Hurricane Katrina. Laura seldom if ever makes mistakes in stories but I really hope this was one of them. Because if not, it's just reprehensible. There's no other word for it.
This really doesn't go very far toward dispelling that stereotype of Lebos being self-centered, self-absorbed and about as sensitive to other people's plights as the current administration.
Why stop with Katrina? Why not co-opt the Twin Towers as well ("Don't fly your terrorist office complex into our neighborhood!") or better yet, go for the Big Casino and compare it to the Holocaust. Yes, that's right. Having an ill-conceived office complex forced on us is exactly like rounding up 6 million Jews and sending them off to death camps.
I have mixed feelings on Kossman, I suppose mostly because I live in another part of town and never even heard about this until today.
But, let's face it, Castle Shannon Blvd. is clearly mixed use. Could it handle another 600-700 cars a day? Sure. Is yet another office building the best use of the land? Probably not, but unless some private individual buys the land to conserve it, there's not a whole lot that can be done.
I can't say I've seen "tons" of empty office space in the Mount Lebanon area. There's clearly some because I now see cable ads for office space in one Washington Rd. building.
Also, isn't all of the plaza/office building next to St. Clair Hospital being pulled down for yet another WalGreens? Where are the tenents in that building (like my DENTIST?) going to go?
Somewhat related to traffic. We live in a "Walking Community" where we send our kids to school every day on foot. But when there is parent teacher conference, a big sporting event, or something else at one of the schools, I have noticed that a large majority of the parents drive. This was the case last nite at the high school, where all of the residential neighborhoods withing 4 blocks of the high school were packed with cars of parents overflowing out of the parking lots. What message is this sending our kids? We live in a walking community so our kids can walk, but us adults cant?
I find it funny.
-Andy
Ah, but the most important question ... was Kossman born here. Hmm, they also own and manage property in AZ, IN, OH, and TX. What is a good native son of Pittsburgh doing owning property in TX? Mighty Custard Class-y. Well, we can let this one slide since he has land banked several parcels. Gotta love anybody willing to land bank with the property taxes we have here.
Andy, I know what you mean. I live across from the high school, so I always walked (couldn't possibly park any closer!).
I'd like to hear some more about the claim that there's lots of unused space in his present buildings. I know the Agents building just up Mt. Lebo Boulevard is open and has been for a while. And I think there's a good bit of space above Carbonara's too. (Oh, wait! That's all Castle Shannon!)
But seriously - if lesser taxed property is vacant, why do we want a big ol' empty office building taking up space? As much as I'll miss the greenspace my concerns are much more strong about use. Like Rich was saying in the other thread, once the space is empty it's hard to get back.
We darn near ran everyone out of the Galleria five years ago before it got renovated, again. We lucked out with Molly Brannigan's. (Towne Fair, anyone?) Before we give the go ahead to Kossman, I want to see that we're thinking hard and making informed decisions about what we do with the space.
Post a Comment
<< Home