Friday, May 09, 2008
Should URA Market the Promise?
The Pittsburgh Promise—a college scholarship program to help students attending public or charter schools in the City who meet grade point average requirements—has many levers operating the machine. The program was initially promoted by the Mayor and school Superintendent, given seed funding by the hospital system UPMC, administered under the auspices of a foundation, with its own board and an executive director.
So should the Urban Redevelopment Authority—a city authority whose five members are appointed by the Mayor and which characterizes itself as the “developer of last resort” in the City—take the reins by integrating the Promise into a cohesive marketing plan with its housing programs? On the one hand, backers of the move would say they should. After all, schools are an important public service and the Promise, if it is fulfilled, could change the fortunes of the City by keeping and attracting residents with children who will attend college and could use the aid. They might be tempted to move into the City if the URA promotes their residential programs (low mortgages, abatements, etc.) in conjunction with educational aid. The URA’s website shows ten programs related to home ownership and rehabilitation.
But on the other hand, is it the responsibility of an authority, an agency which sits off of the main organizational structure of City government, and one that has been in charge of redevelopment to allow its mission to creep further into education? Then too, the chair of the URA stated “there are several initiatives and several programs that are real economic generators that, quite frankly, we just don't promote enough as things to entice people to move in as residents or business or keep people here.” Yet a look at the most recent Annual Report of the agency shows it spent $23.6 million (21% of total) on housing development. If the Authority’s initiatives aren’t being promoted, it sure does not look like it.
Rather, the declining quality of the schools has probably carried heavier weight than the incentive programs. The Promise will not change that. Only true educational reforms like school choice will entice families back into the City.
So should the Urban Redevelopment Authority—a city authority whose five members are appointed by the Mayor and which characterizes itself as the “developer of last resort” in the City—take the reins by integrating the Promise into a cohesive marketing plan with its housing programs? On the one hand, backers of the move would say they should. After all, schools are an important public service and the Promise, if it is fulfilled, could change the fortunes of the City by keeping and attracting residents with children who will attend college and could use the aid. They might be tempted to move into the City if the URA promotes their residential programs (low mortgages, abatements, etc.) in conjunction with educational aid. The URA’s website shows ten programs related to home ownership and rehabilitation.
But on the other hand, is it the responsibility of an authority, an agency which sits off of the main organizational structure of City government, and one that has been in charge of redevelopment to allow its mission to creep further into education? Then too, the chair of the URA stated “there are several initiatives and several programs that are real economic generators that, quite frankly, we just don't promote enough as things to entice people to move in as residents or business or keep people here.” Yet a look at the most recent Annual Report of the agency shows it spent $23.6 million (21% of total) on housing development. If the Authority’s initiatives aren’t being promoted, it sure does not look like it.
Rather, the declining quality of the schools has probably carried heavier weight than the incentive programs. The Promise will not change that. Only true educational reforms like school choice will entice families back into the City.
