It appears to be the in vogue thing to do when applying for Pennsylvania Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (RACP) grants these days:
Whether it be a government agency or quasi-government agency or a private entity making application for taxpayer alms for this project or that, duly note that your endeavor makes little economic sense.
“Sell it, baby!” right?
We first detailed this tawdry little exercise in counterintuitive wealthfare-seeking in Wednesday’s “At Large” column. The owners of the Omni William Penn Hotel in downtown Pittsburgh are seeking $40 million in RACP money – taxpayer money – to pay for half of an $80 million lobby (and more) renovation.
At the same time, they admit that hotel revenues can’t begin to cover the cost. Talk about bold, brash and audacious. We also call it arrogance.
Now comes the Allegheny County Airport Authority with a similar spiel. As the Post-Gazette reports it, the public agency that never met a public subsidy that it did not like has filed an RACP application that would have taxpayers cover half of the $4.84 million cost of remodeling two of its hangars at Pittsburgh International Airport.
As the P-G reports it, the authority wants to split the bill with taxpayers “to demonstrate ‘shared investment and commitment’ to the hangars, which have been in operation since the 1950s.”
Talk about hubris. Talk about hogwash.
Per the application, per the P-G:
“RACP support is essential due to the scale of capital improvements and the limited ability of the Allegheny County Airport Authority and airline tenants to absorb the full cost.”
At the same time, the Airport Authority reasons that the hangars are worthy of the public subsidies because they generate “more than $42 million annually in regional economic impact and allowing the hangars to age without upgrades ‘poses a risk’ to its functionality.”
The P-G notes how the hangar facility employs more than 150 workers and also contains maintenance infrastructure for Republic Airways, which uses Pittsburgh International as a base.
“By modernizing essential systems, the project safeguards a vital employer, preserves family-sustaining jobs, and secures Pittsburgh’s role as a hub for regional aviation,” the RACP application notes.
But offloads risk and responsibility onto taxpayers that tenants such as Republic and others should bear and bear alone. We reiterate the application’s defense of raiding the public kitty yet again — the Airport Authority and airline tenants can’t
“absorb the full cost.”
What’s wrong with this equation, folks? Out of one side of its mouth, the Airport Authority touts a grand economic benefit number (that history suggests likely is overblown), then out of the other side of its mouth laments that the authority and the hangar tenants can’t afford the operation.
So, that’s an acceptable rationale for transferring fully half the cost of this project to taxpayers? Sorry, but no.
How about the Airport Authority reviewing its rent/lease cost structure of these facilities instead of it, and Republic, suckling yet again at the taxpayer teat?
If the authority and Republic (and any other hangar complex tenants) can’t afford such an operation, neither can taxpayers. These “hangars-on-ers” should pay their full freight.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
