Colin McNickle At Large

Notes on the state of things

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

CNN has labeled Pittsburgh as one of 10 cities “living in the future.”

 

“If you know where to look, you can travel to the future today,” the cable news network says.

 

In particular, CNN cites Pittsburgh’s hub status for research into self-driving vehicles.
Funny, but it somehow missed a city decidedly living in the past. Think of its antiquated water and sewage system on the verge of collapse. Think of its public schools that are failing students, parents and taxpayers.

 

Actually, that’s not funny at all – but tragic. Cities truly “living in the future” get the fundamentals right – first.

 

Post-Gazette and Tribune-Review editorialists are in rare agreement that the dire straits of the Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority must be a priority for public policy makers.

 

The Trib notes that the massive undertaking must be achieved “while minimizing ratepayers’ pain.”

 

But given the price tag – up to $5 billion, by one estimate – expect ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ pain to be massive as well.

 

This is what happens when government, atrophied by one-party rule, constantly promotes lots of sizzle with little and cheap cuts of steak to back it up.

 

For the first time in 16 years, non-flyers now have regular access to the airside terminal at Pittsburgh International Airport. That access, restored Tuesday, was revoked following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

The Findlay Township airport becomes the first in the nation restore such access. And it is good news on two counts: Not only can families and friends once again give departing and arriving relatives and acquaintances a gate sendoff upon departure and greet them at the gate upon arrival, the general public once again can shop at the terminal’s mall.

 

The move, however, is being panned by a labor union, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants. President Bob Ross calls the access restoration a “bad idea” that threatens security and “needs to be reversed.”

 

Airport officials defend the move, saying non-ticketed visitors will be subject to the same security as those with tickets. Ross, however, says it somehow will compromise the “layered approach” to security “where if terrorists breach a layer, second and third layers come into play to protect us.”

 

But it’s difficult to see how any of those layers would be compromised in the system of newly restored access. In fact, one can only imagine that, given the changes, security officials will be on the top of their game.

 

By the way, airport officials say the new policy will not be allowed to delay the flying public. In times of heavy traffic, ticketed passengers will move to the front of the line.

 

Here we go again. A New York developer is seeking a decade of property tax abatements at a proposed $35 million project to convert three buildings at the former H.J. Heinz complex on the North Side into apartments.

 

Allegheny County Council is considering a 100 percent abatement — decreasing to 60 percent in the ninth year with full taxes being paid after year 10 — for Crow Hill Development of Brooklyn on the expected assessed value of $20 million. The Post-Gazette says the county tax reduction would be capped at $250,000 a year.

 

The county tax break would come under LERTA, the Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance Act.

 

Crow Hill wants to build 133 apartments. Forty of the apartments would be “affordable.”
This LERTA plan would apply only to the county. But Crow Hill surely will seek tax breaks from Pittsburgh Public Schools and the City of Pittsburgh. Mayor Bill Peduto’s chief of staff says the administration is “excited for (its) proposed investment.”

 

More than a decade ago, taxpayers helped to underwrite the quite tony Heinz Lofts.
Historic or not, developers and government-types always argue that such projects cannot be built “but for” the taxpayer help, and no matter in what form it comes. They also typically argue that the greater tax returns down the road will greatly exceed the original taxpayer “investment.”

 

But why should taxpayers assume any portion of the risk Crow Hill will take on as it seeks to earn a profit?

 

Why should they pay the portion of the public services from which said tax breaks, in part, absolve the developer?

 

Simply put, they should not.

 

Colin McNickle is a senior fellow and media specialist at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Colin McNickle
Colin McNickle

Colin received his B.G.S. from Ohio University. The 40-year journalism veteran joined the Institute in October 2016. That followed a 22-year career with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 18 as director of editorial pages for Trib Total Media. Prior that, Colin had a long and varied career in media — from radio, newspapers and magazines, to United Press International and The Associated Press.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Weekly insights on the markets and financial planning.

Recent Posts