posted by Mike Madison at 4:07 PM /
The local free-marketeering Allegheny Institute is unhappy with both the Mt. Lebanon School Board and the municipality. Here's a taste of a long post from the Allegheny Institute blog, today:
The real problem is that local officials want to control who does the building and what type of residential development gets built. They do not trust the market to do the job. So, we have years of behind the scenes deal making to get a project done that suits the officials. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands in potential tax revenues have not been collected as would have happened if the property had been turned over to a developer and developed years ago.
Labels: municipality, school district, taxes, TIF, washington park
9 Comments:
Why do you need leadership when you have money? Just look at the amount of taxes wasted by the township. 1/2 million dollar playground in main park. 1 million dollar 911 center about to close after 2 years. 1 million dollar park at the old trolley loop. Millions of dollars down the drain at the ice rink and pool center. And now 4 million dollars for a private condominium development. It could have been 3 million if these new residents were willing to treck to main park instead wanting a private park at their door. But - this IS Mt. Lebanon.
I'm moving to Mt. Lebanon from a very depressed town. The budgets are small and
the community development is almost nonexistent. Lebo has more money available
and they use that money. I have read all I can about the TIF and I agree with
the Allegheny Institute in the fundamental principle: this is a bastardization of
the intent of TIF. I don't believe Mt. Lebanon has a problem attracting
development. Furthermore, I can't imagine how an undeveloped plot on Washington
Road - in uptown Mt. Lebanon - could be blighted. That's hard to rationalize.
Can a public official comment on this for me? Maybe I missed the explanation.
As for having money and using it, I believe Mt. Lebanon is in the position to
take more risks than most communities. The new park is a risk: will it attract
more people to the community? Will it increase our quality of life? Will either
of those translate into increased tax revenue?
No one can claim to know if those will happen. It's hard to calculate for a park
or 911 center. As for this development I believe it's much easier to calculate.
The apartments will most likely sell, the commercial space will most likely be
occupied, and chances are someone will park there. Still, there is a problem for
me, here, because this building is not public works. Perhaps that makes the
investment less risky?
I'd still rather assume the risk and enhance a park or convert a truly blighted
property. These are risks no private developer is likely to undertake on their
own. I don't feel he same way about the TIF property.
I sent this e-mail this evening and thought I would post it here as well ............
All:
Monday evening our School Board voted 6-3 to “opt-in" to the Washington Park TIF Plan. This is the first of several local actions to be considered in the TIF process. The County has already opted-out.
One of the most significant observations is the two board members closest to the project, Jo Posti and Mark Hart, voted against participating. Posti and Hart represented the District in the face-to-face discussions with the developer, Municipality and County representatives over several months and were not convinced the District should participate for several reasons. Sue Rose also offered a very thoughtful and reasoned explanation for her “no” vote.
The District’s action keeps the process moving and elevates the importance of the upcoming Commission meetings.
The Commission will hold a public hearing at 6:00 pm on Monday, March 26. The Commission will not consider participation until Monday, April 23. This interim period is established to emphasize the importance of public comment.
Please consider attending the hearing to be held at the Municipal building, at 6:00 pm.
Also, I have spoken with Steve Feller, our Municipal Manager, about receiving e-mails from the Community and passing them along to the Commission, which he will gladly do. (The Commission does not have a centralized e-mail address similar to the School Board.)
Please consider sharing your thoughts with the Commission via Steve Feller: sfeller@mtlebanon.org
Thanks, Bill. Can a non-citizen of the municipality attend the hearing?
Thanks for doing this leg work. I'll be crafting an email shortly.
From the Tribune Review -- 03/23/07
Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
Lance: To the Mt. Lebanon school board. It has voted to give a $6.1 million tax-increment-financing package to the developer of a very tony condominium project on land the municipality has held, undeveloped, for decades. Taxpayers have no business underwriting capital costs that should be borne by a private developer. Can we trust that Mt. Lebanon commissioners will reject this nonsense when they consider it? OK, stop laughing.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/archive/s_499110.html
Casey, Commission meetings and public hearings are open to the "public" - so come on down ...
If you cannot make the meeting, email manager Feller. We cannot count on the Commission getting it right on their own.
Jim
MORE FROM THE ALLEGHENY INSTITUTE BLOG:
Thursday, March 22, 2007
TIF Nonsense From Realtor
Now that the Mt. Lebanon School Board approved participating in a TIF deal for the Washington Park condo project, the next step is for the commissioners to either approve or reject the deal. A denial at this point seems unlikely.
Why? Well, they have bought into the notion that the project has satisfied the “but for” criterion, namely that without the TIF, the development would not happen. It is a statutory requirement, but it is doubtful that the school board members who voted for the plan or the commissioners planning to get on board have thought objectively about this requirement.
Instead, they listen to people like the high-ranking official of a major real estate company in the region, who said he's been involved with other high-rise condominium projects and that he does not believe Washington Park could be developed without a TIF. “The property has very, very high costs to develop because of infrastructure costs,” said the official.
OK, fine. Then why is it that of the $4.7 million being used directly for the project that over 80 percent of it will be used for non-infrastructure costs? Over $1 million will go for acquisition, $1.3 million for a “public park” that is really landscaping for the facility, and another $1.6 million for a parking garage for the condos. Those are not infrastructure uses. There were other Mt. Lebanon condo projects (such as the MainLine Development)that had infrastructure costs to contend with and did so without a subsidy. How about the fact that Allegheny County, whose TIF policy is to participate in projects “will only be utilized to support public infrastructure improvements”, is not participating in the diversion of taxes?
Too bad objective analysis did not guide this project along. Instead, opinion and subjectivity has. The real estate executive is not exactly unbiased since his company is selling the condos and obviously wants to see them get built.
The Mt Lebanon School Board wants alternative financing, so does Zagamias.
So do the Port Authority and the Allegheny County Executive. Read this to find out who else wants a free lunch from your wallet:
http://www.alleghenyinstitute.org/briefs/vol7no15.pdf
Post a Comment
<< Home